Fighter, Rogue, Blaster, Healer . . . Balanced?

[Li Shenron]

I think you'd find the game is much easier to balance just by removing scribe scroll and craft wand feats.

Yeah, but what if you replace them with... rituals? They are practically "scribe scroll on the fly".

 

[Dozen]

Yeah, but what if you replace them with... rituals? They are practically "scribe scroll on the fly".

Are they now? I've never heard of such abuse. Maybe I'm not thinking of the rituals you're thinking of. Can you share a link? I'm eager to learn about any kind of mechanic abuse! For... <.< ... >.> ... reasons!

 

[JRRNeiklot]

Have you read what he said? And is there anyone on the planet who still rolls stats?

Yes. In fact, I won't play in a non convention/tournament game that involves point buy. I do not like being Harrison Bergeroned.

 

[Dozen]

Yes. In fact, I won't play in a non convention/tournament game that involves point buy. I do not like being Harrison Bergeroned.

...Well, not being the most mentally stable person on the planet, I can certainly say I have my share of handicaps, and having the ability to decide what stats my characters get does not feel as limiting. Actually it comes off as quite the opposite. How did you arrive at that conclusion?

 

[JRRNeiklot]

Because, sans your most important stat, most characters look exactly the same. A 28 point buy melee fighter will generally look like:
S16 D14 C15 I10 W10 Ch8 Sure, the odd player will throw a higher int or charisma in there, but generally speaking, most melee fighters will look something like the above. A wizard will most likely be: S8 D16 C14 I16 W10 Ch8.

There's never a strong charismatic fighter or a strong wizard or any variation. Every melee fighter looks damn near the same, and the same can be said for every other archetype. There are outliers, sure, but generally speaking, they'll all have the exact same stats. No variety. There are neither those who stand above nor below the average. I understand the necessity of point buy for tournaments and conventions, but for home play, you have accepted balance at the cost of uniformity and boredom.

 

[the Jester]

Not to mention the (always controversial) joy of playing a pc with one or more low stats (and no, an 8 isn't "low").

 

[Dozen]

Because, sans your most important stat, most characters look exactly the same. A 28 point buy melee fighter will generally look like:
S16 D14 C15 I10 W10 Ch8 Sure, the odd player will throw a higher int or charisma in there, but generally speaking, most melee fighters will look something like the above. A wizard will most likely be: S8 D16 C14 I16 W10 Ch8.

There's never a strong charismatic fighter or a strong wizard or any variation. Every melee fighter looks damn near the same, and the same can be said for every other archetype. There are outliers, sure, but generally speaking, they'll all have the exact same stats. No variety. There are neither those who stand above nor below the average. I understand the necessity of point buy for tournaments and conventions, but for home play, you have accepted balance at the cost of uniformity and boredom.

Uniformity? Bleh. I don't feel inclined to follow any of the stereotypes, and anyone who does dug his own grave. Don't blame the system when it gave you a choice and you f?cked it up for yourself. I'll have you know, I always played arcane Casters and never had my Strength below 10 or Charisma below 12. But I'm not doing it in a raving urge to look original. It just fits my playstyle. And so do the stats you listed fit those who use them. Seriously, of all things you can introduce an element of originality into in a roleplaying game, you'd choose your stats? The six numbers on your character sheet that give you some fancy modifiers? Because I'm yet to meet a person who looks at a row of numerics and say:

'Oh, wow, I've never seen that combo before! You must have artistic talent and be able to deny all conventions! Please, teach me how to avoid conformity by screwing my imaginary self over by giving him capabilities which are completely irrelevant to his lifestyle and job!'

Tell me if you're one of those so I can sell tickets. But either way, I'm going to define my avatars by something other than a bunch of doodles, so long you don't mind. I'm not saying that having a low or high ability score can't be roleplayed out, but stats are tools, not straightjackets you have to wiggle free from. The players don't choose the usual selections to mimic each other, they choose them because they work, and not doing so in a high combat campaign can range from Chaotic Stupid to downright suicidal. It's the tabletop RPG equalient of jumping into a well because someone told you not to.

 

[CroBob]

Part of the issue is that the game really has a single Wizard class with lots of different ways to specialise (either by formally being a Specialist Wizard... or even just by choosing a particular subset of spells), whereas all the many "Specialist Fighters" are actually classes in their own right - Barbarian, Monk, even Rogue (plus Swashbuckler, Samurai, Scout...). Before going far down this road, it's worth considering whether some or all of those classes shouldn't be eliminated and their powers turned into feat chains.

I figure any of those that could do the Fighter's job could easily be included in a feat chain (or web). The real problem is figuring out what the fighter's job is. What does the Fighter do, that nobody else does, or at least that nobody else who isn't very similar to the Fighter does? Further, I can't claim I think the different casters being a single class compared to fighty classes getting split up is necessarily a problem, since they all still operate essentially the same way and have essentially the same access to spells. The problem is still that spells are just plain better than what fighties can do, regardless which school they're cast from.

I loved that book in theory, but hated it in practice. Such a good idea, but implemented so badly! (Unfortunately, like a lot of the later 3.5e books, it didn't even pretend to be balanced with what had gone before, and instead went for an outright power-boost. Given that my preference was very strongly in favour of the lower level of early-3.5e, this was very much not for me. I would much have preferred a reining-in of the excesses of spellcasters, rather than a boost for everyone else.)

Frankly, me too. At low and high levels, there are magic spells which neutralize entire encounters with just the one spell. Either way, though, it was a fantastic book introducing ways to make fighties very fun to play. By the time it came out, de-powering casties was simply out of the question without pissing off everybody who played the game and having them ignore them anyhow.

You're right about that. It's a weakness of the feats system that some feats give static bonuses (and so become less useful with level) while others do not (and so become more useful with level). If a Fighter's feats are indeed supposed to be his compensation for the Barbarian getting Greater Rage, the Rogue getting +10d6 Sneak Attack, and the Wizard getting Wish, they should be equivalently impressive.

Well, to be fair, each individual feat should be about the same as each step of those class' ability chains. Each d6 of the rogue's sneak attack, each incriment of the Barbarian's rage abilities, etc. The point is, the feat should either improve with level, or be part of a chain with improving results as you climb it's chain, the last feat in the chain being better than merely a d6 of the rogue's sneak attack to compensate for the weakness of that necessary first feat of the chain (which would naturally be weaker and only taken to climb the feat chain in the first place).

 

[CroBob]

Because, sans your most important stat, most characters look exactly the same. A 28 point buy melee fighter will generally look like:
S16 D14 C15 I10 W10 Ch8 Sure, the odd player will throw a higher int or charisma in there, but generally speaking, most melee fighters will look something like the above. A wizard will most likely be: S8 D16 C14 I16 W10 Ch8.

I don't know exactly what you two are arguing about, and, frankly, I don't care. I'm calling BS on this array. You may be correct about the Fighter, but why would a casty need anything more than a 14 in their non-primary? The benefits of having more spells at higher DCs outweighs the extra +1 to your Reflex and AC by a landslide. I mean, if you want to do that for role-play reasons, okay, but, mechanically, you're gimping yourself. More realistic 28 point purchases;

Fighter; 16, 12, 15, 10, 10, 8, depending on feats you're looking into getting.

Wizard; 10, 12, 12, 18, 10, 8

 

[the Jester]

The players don't choose the usual selections to mimic each other, they choose them because they work, and not doing so in a high combat campaign can range from Chaotic Stupid to downright suicidal. It's the tabletop RPG equalient of jumping into a well because someone told you not to.

Amazingly enough, in old, no-point-buy campaigns, pcs with rolled stats worked just fine.

Hey, you know what? Even now, when running 4e, characters with rolled stats work just fine. They did in 2e, in 3.0 and in 3.5, too.

You seem to be arguing that choosing a different array than the optimal is a Bad Choice ("from Chaotic Stupid to downright suicidal"). Yet, in my campaign, which is high-lethality and high-combat, pcs with rolled stats manage to triumph even when they don't match up with the 'best choice array'.

So stat generation is a playstyle choice, not one of right and wrong.

This line of discussion started when you asked JRRN why he dislikes point buy. You asked, he answered.

BTW, a lot of pen and paper rpg players loathe using the term "toon" or "avatar" to describe your player character. Too much infusion of CRPG terminology into "real" (in their minds) rpgs. Just FYI, in case you weren't aware.