combat/non-combat abilities: how is it balanced?

[mach1.9pants]

OK, so one of the stated design aims of 4E is to disconnect combat ability from non-combat or outside of combat abilities. I don' think that has been achieved.

PC's have (apart from using attack powers in clever ways) three main types of non-combat abilities. First, and foremost, is their trained skills. Second are utility powers, some of them anyway. The third part of this is rituals.

But each class is not equal in this, especially the most important part. Rogues get 6 trained skills, down to fighters with 3. Now I realise that skills have a lot of combat uses but that does not invalidate the problem. Outside of combat a rogue is still the most useful PC, overall. The fighter can choose some useful non-combat skills but his range of training is not the same. To be as good as a rogue he must give up some of his combat power and use his feats. So what is the fighter getting in return for this lack of utility? His powers are not better than the Rogue (and definitely not the 5 skill ranger). The only thing he 'beats' the rogue on is weapon and armour proficiencies and hit points. And with the way the rogue is designed the lack of wep and armour proficiencies is hardly a real hindrance. So, as with 3E, we have non-combat balanced with combat power; a fighter's hitpoints and surges versus a rogue's trained skills. And considering a fighter's role he needs these extra HP so the balance of HP for skills is very much in the rogue's favour.

The third part of the non-combat abilities is rituals and here we we the same thing. The wizard looses out BIG style on combat. It is not his job to get into the thick of things but he has no armour or wep proficiencies to speak of and his HP/surges suck. What does he get in return? A bit of flexibility (strategically, so to be of real use he must know his enemy before combat to pick the better dailies/utilities for that foe) and rituals...a non-combat power. Those rituals are really nice and save the wizard a bit of money and a feat (whooppee) but the pay back is a real lack of combat staying power. IMO one cannot argue that a wizards spells and other combat power makes up for their lack on HP, wep and armour proficiencies.

A wizards lack of combat toughness should be balanced with more powerful ranged spells; not non-combat rituals. A rogue's extra skills should have some non-combat balance, but basically a rogue gets them for free! It was something I was really looking forward for 4E ( since Races & Classes) and it is my biggest disappointment. Don't get me wrong the balance is much better than 3E and I am sticking with 4E. But why didn't they go the whole way, everybody with equal skill points, any non-combat power (wizards rituals) balanced with something else non-combat (maybe less skills for the wizard in return, or hard-wired skill choice must take Arcana, History and one of dungeoneering/religion/nature as 3 of his 6 skills?).

It seems to me that in the same way that a ranger is described as the ultimate tracker in is class fluff (when they are no better than anyone else) this is a hangover from previous editions. Wizards always had poor armour and hit points, so lets do it in 4E; forgetting that in previous editions they were the most powerful in and out of combat at higher levels, by a mile...unlike in this edition where the ranger is damage king. Fighters have always have low skill points, we'll give them 3 (why?); rogues have always been skilful so lets give them SIX 9and rangers 5) when in 4E rogues are not a rogue at all but an in-combat assassin; a lurking death dealer. Not a cat burgler at all.

So IMC (after I have finished the KotSF pre-gens and got the hang of 4E) house rules will be PROBABLY be coming in to balance this problem of balance. Everybody will get 5 or 6 trained skills. A wizards lack of armour and wep will be balanced by an increase in the damage dealing properties of their spells (+1 per tier should do it). Etc.....

So am I talking rubbish and not seeing the balance; or am I right and there was not enough sacred hamburger produced....like having 4 defences: fortitude, Reflex, Will and Armour Class; why not just armour?

 

[Maximillian]

Man, that is some seriously healthy discussion right there.

While I'm in agreement that the non-combat abilities of the classes aren't balanced against one-another, I don't think that WotC was trying to use combat power as a balance against them.

The wizard has low hit points and bad AC because his role is to deal damage to a number of targets at once. Only this class can do so every round. The wizard routinely deals damage comparable to that of a leader or a defender to multiple combatants, whereas the other two mentioned roles only deal it to one enemy with most powers. He does deal less damage than a striker, but if you add up all the damage he can put out in one turn, it's greater. (I'm not doing math here, I think that's common sense. Feel free to demonstrate my wrongness there.)

All the roles combat powers and class features feel fairly internally consistent ot me. They were balanced this way to encourage party tactics and relying on your fellow adventurers, not to offset skills and rituals. I haven't played more than a dozen encounters, though, and none of them higher than 3rd level yet, so it's possible this is "new edition smell."

You're absolutely right, though, that it's ridiculous for classes to have to give up combat power (feats) to acquire non-combat power. I have in the back of my mind that skills and rituals for each class should be balanced against each other, regardless of combat power. Say, 6 trained skills for classes that don't get ritual caster as a bonus feat, and 3 for those that do. Something would have to be done about the wizard gaining bonus rituals, of course.

I wonder about the combat utility of skills, though, such as avoiding diseases with Endurance, or becoming more mobile with Jump. It's hard to completely divorce the two.

 

[theNater]

So I was comparing the fighter and the rogue for out-of-combat effectiveness, and I noticed something interesting. The fighter gets 3 trained skills out of 5 class skills. The rogue gets 6 trained skills out of 10 class skills. Both of them are trained in 60% of the abilities expected in members of their class.

I checked the other classes, and with the exception of the warlock, they were all between 57 and 67%(warlock was at 50%, which really stood out). Is it possible that this is where the skill balance lies, rather than raw number of skills?

Another thing I noticed is that the fighter's utility powers are all very combat-oriented, while the rogue has a number that are more useful outside of combat. Does the fighter's guarantee of extra combat power from utility powers make taking less combat power from feats more reasonable?

 

[mach1.9pants]

I agree with many of your points. Thematically (especially thematically similar to 3E) it feels right for a wizard to be unarmoured and fragile, with lots of utility with rituals. And rogues should be skilful. But balanced? No.

I agree that a wizard is the only area damage expert, but the ability to do this does not balance with the lack of HP et al. The wizards spells are different than a rogues but no more powerful. Against a solo of a couple of elites the strikers are great, against minions the wizard rules. Against a standard sort of mixed encounter they are equal, powers wise. This is as it should be but woe is a wizard getting schwacked. Now I know the party is supposed to cover roles to protect the squishy but this does not mean the classes are balanced against each other. And it should be. The reason a wizard is squishy and needs to be protected should be because they have more powerful powers than other classes. Not to the extent of 3E but there should be a trade off; toughness for a bit more killing power. Look at the ranger, the melee powers are that much better than the ranged but that is balanced 'cos the melee ranger has to put himself in harms way...that works and is great. But a wizards squishiness versus his other combat power doesn't balance.

I also agree that skills have combat use but that makes the rogue even more powerful. A rogues powers are about the same as any other class; their class features are about the same but they have more combat utility because of extra skills.

The designers, IMO, took a lot of brave decsions but really fell short on this IMO. You say "I wonder about the combat utility of skills" this would be solved if all classes had the same number of trained skills. it would also solve the non-combat vs combat power balance. Tie in ritual use to skill use (as I suggested in the OP) would work well... especially as rituals (like skills) have some combat use.

 

[mach1.9pants]

I checked the other classes, and with the exception of the warlock, they were all between 57 and 67%(warlock was at 50%, which really stood out). Is it possible that this is where the skill balance lies, rather than raw number of skills?

I don't think this balances at all, it actually makes the small nember of class skills even less useful IMO. Not only are you trained in less but your choice is more limited.

Another thing I noticed is that the fighter's utility powers are all very combat-oriented, while the rogue has a number that are more useful outside of combat. Does the fighter's guarantee of extra combat power from utility powers make taking less combat power from feats more reasonable?

good point this, and I think this is a reasonable way to balance in/out of combat power. I will have to have a look around and see if that does balance. However I don't think a wizard has his lack of toughness (a thematically good thing IMO but a balance error) balanced by good combat utility powers.

 

[Hambot]

For balance it is far better to start the wizard off weak, then release utility powers here and there to give them a balanced level of versatility. Like those illusion powers they just put up the other day on the website - those suddenly make the wizard feel like a controller rather than a blaster.

I have no problem with them starting off conservatively with the wizard, then dialing up the power a little as required. Better that than 3.0 where they were released as hasted broken spell spitting maniacs, prompting a 3.5 release. Skills are far more useful now, with the possible exception of streetwise. So every class can do something useful out of combat, even though the balance isn't perfect.

Considering how limited space was in the initial book, I feel it is designed to get new players up and running and having fun in the traditional roles, where one guy specialized a bit more out of combat, while others focused on combat effectiveness. Many non combat martial utility powers may have been shunted to the martial power sourcebook, and I expect to see far more sophisticated wizard builds become possible after they get a splat.

Demanding perfect balance in and out of combat is a big ask, because the Wizards fantasy roots lie in making the impossible happen - that's all sorts of useful outside of combat. That will eventually eclipse the awesomeness of the skills as they stand.

And even if it was in perfect equilibrium, it would be in a groups best interest to break that balance anyway by having some PC's specialise in combat feats, while another couple work on the non combat areas, rather than everybody trying to generalise. This makes it easy for a party of standard PC's thrown together to work effectively as a team, where everybody has their area of specialty outside of combat, even thoug the rogue gets a bigger slice of pie. The line is very blurry - if everybody gets a disease in combat, then the person with heal or endurance is critical to party survival and the value of that skill can get the party to civilisation before they all succumb - If you are useful less often, but vital when you are useful, isn't that another form of balance?

 

[GoLu]

The line is very blurry - if everybody gets a disease in combat, then the person with heal or endurance is critical to party survival and the value of that skill can get the party to civilisation before they all succumb - If you are useful less often, but vital when you are useful, isn't that another form of balance?

Personally, I don't think so. If all you can do is cure disease, your contribution might be absolutely 100% vital. Lets assume it prevents the party from dying horribly. What this usually amounts to is you saying "I cure the party" and the DM saying "okay". You're about as important as the NPC sage that tells the party where the next adventure happens to be. That is, absolutely critical to the completion of the adventure, in all your ten seconds of understated glory.

It reminds me of why people get tired of always playing the healer, actually.

 

[theNater]

I agree that a wizard is the only area damage expert, but the ability to do this does not balance with the lack of HP et al. The wizards spells are different than a rogues but no more powerful. Against a solo of a couple of elites the strikers are great, against minions the wizard rules. Against a standard sort of mixed encounter they are equal, powers wise.

A quote that I think is on point here:

Do not meddle in the affairs of Wizards, for they are subtle and quick to anger.

Area damage is only one of the wizard's unique talents. Wizards are really masters of battlefield control.

Every level of daily powers includes at least one power with a persistent effect. Many of those can be relocated by the wizard as needed. A clever wizard can lock foes down into damage zones. An even cleverer wizard can herd foes into highly disadvantageous positions.

When an enemy gets himself flanked to avoid a wizard's damage zone, does the sneak attack damage from the rogue get credited to the rogue, or to the wizard?