Doing Wrong Part 2: Fighters, Wizards and Balance Oh My!

[Remathilis]

Oh, that's fair enough. I don't think the armor vs damage type table in 1e or unarmed combat table in 2e are good examples of design, but the key point is that spellcasting has no need to be more complex than martial.

So you offer simple and complex options for both types, and everyone wins.

The problem with simple and complex comes down to the work/reward value. If Fighter X has 20 unique maneuver's to parry, thrust, spin and feint, yet none are strictly better than pure attacking, Fighter X is getting added complexity for limited value. However, if the 20 maneuver's are better than pure attacking, then Fighter Y (who can only pure-attack) is below par compared to his complex brother.

 

[Obryn]

The problem with simple and complex comes down to the work/reward value. If Fighter X has 20 unique maneuver's to parry, thrust, spin and feint, yet none are strictly better than pure attacking, Fighter X is getting added complexity for limited value. However, if the 20 maneuver's are better than pure attacking, then Fighter Y (who can only pure-attack) is below par compared to his complex brother.

Sure, if they are all at-will. You can balance such things through some form of resource management.

-O

 

[Meatboy]

Sure, if they are all at-will. You can balance such things through some form of resource management.

-O

Something like the martial dice or whatever they are called for ddn seems fitting. (if they aren't able to be used that way already) being able to "burn" dice for damage or to hit bonus and keep the fighter simple or burning dice, and maybe investing in a feat or something and being able to add kickers of some kind to attacks.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Sure, if they are all at-will. You can balance such things through some form of resource management.

Sure, but then you can run into a host of verisimilitude/archetype/expectation problems, potentially. If my player wants a complex fighter, but also doesn't like wrapping their mind around abilities with a use limited by metagame and not by the fiction, it's a problem if the only complex options are also reality-breaking for them.

Basically, those are two different dials.

 

[S'mon]

And a PF fighter gets 40 feats (1 every odd level, 1 bonus for every even fighter level). 4 feats is nothing to him.

20/2 + 20/2 =/= 40.

 

[pemerton]

I really like what 4e added in terms of capability for non casting classes. I think however that this list, which I'm assuming has stat blocks attatched to all theses powers or feats, just illustrates the idea that game has gotten to complex. I want my fighter to be able to do all that stuff but I don't want to have reams of pages dedicated to explicit rulings that I can only do if I've chosen the right power. I think this goes double for casters.

There are games that show how this can be done, using broad, free-form descriptors to establish PC capabilities, and then relying on a combination of genre constraints and simple GM guidelines to manage the details of their applications to corner-cases.

The games I have in mind are HeroWars/Quest, Maelstrom Storyteling, and Over the Edge. No doubt there are other similar RPGs out there.

The sorts of descriptors that would be relevant in D&D would be thinks like "Seasoned Veteran", "Barbarian of the Wilderlands", "Ranger of the North", "Firemage of the Greyhawk Academy", etc. You would then need 4e-style guidelines for level-appropriate DCs, damage etc.

The closest D&Dnext has come to this is through its Background and skill rules (has the latest package gone back to freeform skills like the first one had?), but hasn't applied it to core action resolution.

 

[keterys]

Sure, but then you can run into a host of verisimilitude/archetype/expectation problems, potentially. If my player wants a complex fighter, but also doesn't like wrapping their mind around abilities with a use limited by metagame and not by the fiction, it's a problem if the only complex options are also reality-breaking for them.

Resource management doesn't have to mean encounter / daily powers.

It could mean things like the current expertise dice, it could mean that you need to track fatigue and/or luck points. It could mean that you need to generate an opening (say with one maneuver) to pull off another maneuver in the following round (or with team work).

So, your complex fighter might have fatigue points equal to his level that he can use to press for greater effects (list) and several abilities with different triggers.

For example, on critical hits he can trigger one of three effects.
If he parries an enemy, he can riposte or gain an opening.
If he gains an opening, he can use one of three status effects which may or may not have saves.
If the enemy has one of those three status effects, he can do a finishing blow of sorts, etc.

 

[Umbran]

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Some of you are not behaving like ladies and gentlemen. You're getting personal, and snarky, and from outward appearance like you want to "WIN" an internet discussion.

Really, folks? Chill out. Continue speaking like the person you're talking to is less important than your point, and you can expect a vacation. Don't expect further warning, as one warnign for the thread should be more than sufficient.

 

[Meatboy]

There are games that show how this can be done, using broad, free-form descriptors to establish PC capabilities, and then relying on a combination of genre constraints and simple GM guidelines to manage the details of their applications to corner-cases.

The games I have in mind are HeroWars/Quest, Maelstrom Storyteling, and Over the Edge. No doubt there are other similar RPGs out there.

The sorts of descriptors that would be relevant in D&D would be thinks like "Seasoned Veteran", "Barbarian of the Wilderlands", "Ranger of the North", "Firemage of the Greyhawk Academy", etc. You would then need 4e-style guidelines for level-appropriate DCs, damage etc.

The closest D&Dnext has come to this is through its Background and skill rules (has the latest package gone back to freeform skills like the first one had?), but hasn't applied it to core action resolution.

I adore this kind of mechanic. I introduced something similar to my players recently and they really liked it. It allowed them to really personalize their character. Nothing quite like a simple yet deep and flexible rule. I want more things like this and less stat block corner case feats and such.