Fighter design goals . L&L April 30th

[howandwhy99]

How do we reach equality without uniformity? If every character is uniform mechanically, then they are copies of the same character for all intents and purposes. Might I suggest we do not balance PCs against each other, but rather against the world? How well are 1st level fighters going to be balanced against 10th level fighters in their party? Are characters only balanced when everyone is capable of doing everything everyone else can entirely? "Why can the dragon breathe fire and not me?"

Let's stop designing games on the precept that players' play is irrelevant to the results. If my plantation in Puerto Rico never makes any goods or money and yours does, why should I be shackled to increasing my overall resources just because you did? Or should the other player deliberately have theirs withheld?

Balancing a game is hard enough. Ensuring that all actions are rewarded as a group is an easy XP option, but even that isn't enforcing uniform treasure allocation. Are we to do this with every resource? Never accounting for actions individually removes the choice of cooperation in a cooperative game. (everything else sounded just fine btw)

 

[Incenjucar]

How do we reach equality without uniformity?

By having different characters do different things that are equally important to resolving a situation.

My friend's barbarian does insane amounts of damage, but JUST does insane amounts of damage, but my invoker can blind, daze, and slow his target AND grant him a bonus to hit and damage AND give him a bonus to AC and temporary hit points... but does as much damage as a baby kobold with a stick.

In a social situation?

My friend's barbarian has a decent ability to intimidate, but couldn't guess that a politician was dishonest. My invoker is more likely to make someone laugh than cower, but is basically a lie detector. The barbarian asks the questions, the invoker tells him who answers truthfully, and then the barbarian scares the truth out of the liar.

Exploring? Barbarian can jump onto a vine and climb to the top, invoker, who is multiclassed into druid for nature, and has great perception, can point to which vine will actually hold his weight.

 

[Blackwarder]

As the barbarian is a base class that has been in a couple of Players Handbooks, we know it's going to be a class. We've already been made aware of the "omniinclusion" goal.

We don't know that it's going to be a class, iirc what they said is that it will be part of the first PHB. It might as well be an example of using themes and backgrounds yo build your character, want to play as the old barbarian class grab a fighter with barbarian background and the berserker theme! Presto you are a barbarian berserker.

The point is that it makes no sense having a barbarian class, it would be the same as having a noble class or a city dweller class,I also think that being a berserker shouldn't be a class feature but a way to fight, having a berserker theme would allow for interesting builds such as breserker-Viking-cleric of Odin, or being a noble born fighter with a berserker curse (a flavorful way to add the theme), or the dwarf battlerager with the battlerager background and berserker theme.

It allways seemed odd to me that each and every barbarian can automatically rage, if I walk into a barbarian village does every one there got a level in barbarian?

Warder

 

[Incenjucar]

"Barbarian" does not mean the same thing in D&D as it means in Ancient Rome.

 

[dkyle]

How do we reach equality without uniformity? If every character is uniform mechanically, then they are copies of the same character for all intents and purposes. Might I suggest we do not balance PCs against each other, but rather against the world?

That's exactly what balance in a primarily player vs. environment game means. Fighter vs. Wizard is really about what capabilities each has in interacting with the world and achieving their goals. The could have radically different abilities and approaches, but have similar overall power in the world.

The talk about who would win in a fight is just a way to compare their combat capabilities; two classes could be terribly mismatched in a fight between each other, yet still balanced in regards to the overall game.

How well are 1st level fighters going to be balanced against 10th level fighters in their party?

Obviously, balance in a game with character progression is referring to balance between characters of similar amounts of progression.

Players don't choose their level. They do choose their class. Balance is about options the players have available to them.

Are characters only balanced when everyone is capable of doing everything everyone else can entirely? "Why can the dragon breathe fire and not me?"

Not at all. That's not what anyone who is advocating for balance is suggesting when referring to balance. It's simply a cartoonish straw-man.

Let's stop designing games on the precept that players' play is irrelevant to the results. If my plantation in Puerto Rico never makes any goods or money and yours does, why should I be shackled to increasing my overall resources just because you did? Or should the other player deliberately have theirs withheld?

Who is suggesting that games should not have results tied to their "play"? Of course how well someone plays should impact results. That's the whole point of a "game".

Puerto Rico is balanced because each player has the same opportunities, and the same mechanics available to them. Balance does not mean that the game must play out for everyone the same exact way. What an absurd notion!

RPGs are trickier to balance, because we expect meaningfully different character archetypes available to each player. If, on the other hand, we were content with "Everyone plays a Wizard!" or "Everyone plays a Fighter!", the game would be a lot easier to balance.

Balancing a game is hard enough. Ensuring that all actions are rewarded as a group is an easy XP option, but even that isn't enforcing uniform treasure allocation. Are we to do this with every resource? Never accounting for actions individually removes the choice of cooperation in a cooperative game. (everything else sounded just fine btw)

Who is suggestion no accountability for actions?

And again, balance is not about what the players decide to do in-character. It's about what each of them can do, according to the mechanics of the game.

 

[Steely_Dan]

We don't know that it's going to be a class, iirc what they said is that it will be part of the first PHB. It might as well be an example of using themes and backgrounds yo build your character, want to play as the old barbarian class grab a fighter with barbarian background and the berserker theme! Presto you are a barbarian berserker.

The point is that it makes no sense having a barbarian class, it would be the same as having a noble class or a city dweller class,I also think that being a berserker shouldn't be a class feature but a way to fight, having a berserker theme would allow for interesting builds such as breserker-Viking-cleric of Odin, or being a noble born fighter with a berserker curse (a flavorful way to add the theme), or the dwarf battlerager with the battlerager background and berserker theme.

It allways seemed odd to me that each and every barbarian can automatically rage, if I walk into a barbarian village does every one there got a level in barbarian?

I totally agree, Barbarian would be a great Background, then you could have Barbaric parties (Horde campaign etc); same for Noble.

 

[Blackwarder]

"Barbarian" does not mean the same thing in D&D as it means in Ancient Rome.

I wouldn't know, ancient Rome was a bit before my time

Warder

 

[Incenjucar]

I wouldn't know, ancient Rome was a bit before my time

Warder

Actually the internet says it's from Ancient Greece... either way, different word.

Saying "A village of barbarians" is like saying "A village of warlocks" or "A village of paladins."

 

[DEFCON 1]

And save or die? I notice you left that out. His comment does not allow for save or die does it?

I left it out because we've already had blogs from WotC talking about Save or Die effects, and questioning whether they might exist, how they might work, what they might do, and when they might get used. And those points had nothing to do with the design of the Fighter and the desire to make sure he can't "get killed" by the wizard.

If the blog was any indication, if SoD doesn't show up in the game it's because it was determined to not be a good game concept, not because they need to "protect" the precious fighter.

 

[Blackwarder]

Actually the internet says it's from Ancient Greece... either way, different word.

Saying "A village of barbarians" is like saying "A village of warlocks" or "A village of paladins."

I know, I was kidding... I guess pulling my special kidding face: wasn't enough though.

But back on subject, back in the day, there wasn't a barbarian class in D&D, there was a breserker class and I have no idea why they choose to rename it barbarian because being a breserker and being a barbarian are two different things IMO.

Warder