Fighters vs. Spellcasters (a case for fighters.)

[N'raac]

I’m not sure how much these variant scenarios bring to the discussion. The “Reluctant Chamberlain” as originally presented was a challenge which had to be resolved by diplomatic means – murdering the Chamberlain to obtain an audience with the King was simply not a viable option, he had to be persuaded to grant access, or somehow circumvented in a means which would not result in the players’ appeals being summarily dismissed.

While the scenario presented here is an interesting one (and could certainly be designed for play in an indie or a non-indie model – nothing here requires indie play), it’s not the “persuade your way past the Chamberlain to an audience with the King” challenge which was presented, nor does it address balance between spellcasters and non-spellcasters in a 3.5 environment.

We’ve moved away from spellcasting to use of a very high skill roll. Would a PC with Diplomacy at a level, absolute and relative, comparable to Quinn’s Arcana have been less successful in a similarly framed 3.5e scene, whether or not a spellcaster? Apparently, Quinn is well nigh unstoppable by the resources most challenges can be expected to bring to bear against him in his chosen field. We’ve removed any ability to detect his use of magic, so his illusions and enchantments seem largely unbeatable. I fail to see how that demonstrates a balance between spellcasters and nonspellcasters.

Perhaps it illustrates that, if the PC’s all tower above their foes in terms of power, then the difference in their own relative power becomes less relevant. If we envision 15^th – 20^th level characters opposed by a war party of goblins or orcs, then any character can dispatch them with ease, so they seem balanced against one another.

Finally, I would note that I am not among those who argue that the spellcaster would be some unparalleled facilitator of the resolution of negotiations with the Reluctant Chamberlain as initially envisioned and played out in 3e either.

It seems like a lot of this revolves around "you can use pretty much any skill to succeed in a skill challenge". If we decide the Chamberlain is highly impressed by whatever activity the PC's may take, then the half orc can ingratiate himself with a stunning display of his Perform: Belch the Alphabet skill. If we allow the players to gain access to the King by dueling the King's Champion, the martial character becomes the source of success. Maybe we just have to pick the Chamberlain's pocket to impress him with skill and legerdemain.

In other words, it seems like a lot of this comes back to designing challenges to be solved by the skills of any or all PC's, whatever they may be. Why is that somehow less possible in a 3.5 game? For me, I prefer that there be situations that require the right skills, and you can't substitute negotiating and diplomatic skill with expertise in belching the alphabet, picking pockets or archery.

 

[Jackinthegreen]

Of course a chamberlain won't be impressed by a character's ability to belch the alphabet. What kind of hyperbole are you trying to get at? It's not just any kind of skill that will do, and the social contract between players and the DM is that players won't try to force ridiculous things like belching the alphabet as a viable tactic for anything beyond impressing gully dwarves.

One of the things I've noticed from several people in this thread is they use a lot of hyperbole and are constantly looking at something in maybe not the worst light, but definitely not a favorable, neutral, or even passably objective one. Which is one of the reasons I left this thread; as the saying goes, "A man convinced against his will has the same opinion still." And since it seems so many here are not truly willing to have their opinions be changeable, it seems to me like the exercise is pretty much pointless now.

 

[Neonchameleon]

If we decide the Chamberlain is highly impressed by whatever activity the PC's may take, then the half orc can ingratiate himself with a stunning display of his Perform: Belch the Alphabet skill.

As this isn't something suggested by either the rules of the game, the advice given by the game, or any of the advocates of the game I fail to see how it is an example advanced in good faith. It's certainly irrelevant to any except certain dysfunctional modes of 4e that are based on a misunderstanding of the rules and more talked about on message boards by detractors than used in play in my experience.

 

[Imaro]

As this isn't something suggested by either the rules of the game, the advice given by the game, or any of the advocates of the game I fail to see how it is an example advanced in good faith. It's certainly irrelevant to any except certain dysfunctional modes of 4e that are based on a misunderstanding of the rules and more talked about on message boards by detractors than used in play in my experience.

Yeah but then again in the original rules for SC's the DM was supposed to create a list of primary and secondary skills and the PC's were only supposed to use skills that were specified on that list... Not sure which one is worse actually.

EDIT: I also think this is where the "just an excercise in rolling dice" sentiment might have originated from since this almost seems to be borderline railroading and leaves very little room for creativity on the player's part... except in trying to come up with some description of how they used the DM dictated skill...

 

[sheadunne]

I’m not sure how much these variant scenarios bring to the discussion. The “Reluctant Chamberlain” as originally presented was a challenge which had to be resolved by diplomatic means – murdering the Chamberlain to obtain an audience with the King was simply not a viable option, he had to be persuaded to grant access, or somehow circumvented in a means which would not result in the players’ appeals being summarily dismissed.

You're looking at how the scenario resolved, not how the scenario was set up. The only fixed thing in the scenario with the chamberlain was that he was reluctant. The why didn't exist. There was no "why" prior to the die being rolled by Thurgon. Once the roll was made and Thurgon failed his diplomacy with the chamberlain a reason for the failed roll now needed to be created. Why did Thurgon fail to persuade the chamberlain to get an audience with the king? In the context of an heroic game, we might assume that the failure wasn't a result of Thurgon, but rather some other force behind the chamberlain (much like the king was control by Saruman in Lord of the Rings. It wasn't Gandolf's failure at Diplomacy so much as Saruman's control that prevented the success.) I think that may be a difference between 3x and 4e where successes or failure in 3x is a result of player failure and success or failure in 4e is a result of the circumstances. In 3x you failed to jump the pit because you're not good at jumping as opposed to 4e where you failed to jump the pit because the pit was too big or the floor to slippery. This also might be a play-style thing rather than an edition thing. I've certainly always viewed the failure as a result of the character. Now though, I'm thinking that it might be more interesting to look at the circumstances instead.

Here's another way to look the scene. We establish that the chamberlain is going to be reluctant as opposed to more open to diplomacy. We establish a hard DC (in 3x we might give him a circumstance bonus to raise the DC). We now have a chamberlain that requires a more difficult chance of being persuaded using diplomacy alone. The reasons for his reluctance are irrelevant at this stage (although background was established that the city was currently at war and something to do with a dragon, so that can't be changed as a result of any rolling).

[MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] failed his Diplomacy check versus the hard DC. Now we need a reason for the failure. In this case, the chamberlain was being manipulated by someone or something, what was doing it or how it was being done still aren't relevant yet because no further dice to investigate have been rolled.

Once the players start rolling more dice to investigate, more answers are created based on failure or success, just as if Thurgon had succeeded on his Diplomacy, the scene would have changed to reflect that success. Maybe the Chamberlain wasn't being control but instead being blackmailed and now was more willing to confront the circumstances since the PCs gave him courage (I think [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION]'s previous running of the scene showed how this might be played out).

Keep in mind that this isn't my preferred method. I don't like relying that much on die rolls, nor do I like my stories to have that much free-form. But what it does do, that I like to some extent, is remove the one-and-done method of 3x skills. Whether it's better than other systems at doing that I don't know, but as far as what I'd like to see happen, it's probably closer than the 3x model which I find tends to shut down the scene, rather than open it up. In much the same way that a single crit hit will kill the big bad or a S0D spell can end the fight before combat even begins.

If anyone wants I can post my overall thoughts of the PBP game from a non-4e player, in regards to the theme of the thread (caster/non-caster balance).

In other words, it seems like a lot of this comes back to designing challenges to be solved by the skills of any or all PC's, whatever they may be. Why is that somehow less possible in a 3.5 game? For me, I prefer that there be situations that require the right skills, and you can't substitute negotiating and diplomatic skill with expertise in belching the alphabet, picking pockets or archery.

In my PF games (and prior in my 3x games), all challenges can be solved using one of two or more skills. There is never a situation where just one skill is the only option.

A player might use Diplomacy or Knowledge: Nobility when negotiating with the Chamberlain. They might also use Knowledge: Nature instead of survival for tracking a creature through the woods. They also might use Jump instead of Climb to scale the wall or perhaps Knowledge: Engineering. The point being, there always more than one way to skin a cat.

Also, as I've mentioned previously, look at the different actions as pluses or minuses to the initial diplomacy check, rather than different ways to negotiate. Perhaps the chamberlain is a fan of dancing and by doing so you add a bonus to your diplomacy check. In 4e instead of the plus or minus, it's number of successes before failures.

 

[LostSoul]

[MENTION=6681948]N'raac[/MENTION] (or anyone else curious): Here is the PbP thread we're discussing.

One of the things that jumped out at me when we first started was that I wasn't sure what my PC could do. Not just because I had a whole suite of powers that I wasn't familiar with; I wasn't sure what the results of success or the consequences of failure would be. I wasn't sure how much I could "push" at what I wanted to do - the scope/scale of any single check. Nor did I know how my actions here would influence the situation in the future. I found it difficult, in the beginning, to decide on a course of action. That cleared up after a few rounds of play, but I felt out of my depth at the start.

(Specifically I'm thinking of the first Disguise Self check, where my (unstated!) intent was to sit & talk with the strange, silk-robed fellow. When he dismissed me I wasn't sure how to proceed.)

 

[sheadunne]

[MENTION=6681948]N'raac[/MENTION] (or anyone else curious): Here is the PbP thread we're discussing.

One of the things that jumped out at me when we first started was that I wasn't sure what my PC could do. Not just because I had a whole suite of powers that I wasn't familiar with; I wasn't sure what the results of success or the consequences of failure would be. I wasn't sure how much I could "push" at what I wanted to do - the scope/scale of any single check. Nor did I know how my actions here would influence the situation in the future. I found it difficult, in the beginning, to decide on a course of action. That cleared up after a few rounds of play, but I felt out of my depth at the start.

(Specifically I'm thinking of the first Disguise Self check, where my (unstated!) intent was to sit & talk with the strange, silk-robed fellow. When he dismissed me I wasn't sure how to proceed.)

Didn't you also have a series of really bad rolls in the beginning?

 

[Jacob Marley]

In my PF games (and prior in my 3x games), all challenges can be solved using one of two or more skills. There is never a situation where just one skill is the only option.

A player might use Diplomacy or Knowledge: Nobility when negotiating with the Chamberlain. They might also use Knowledge: Nature instead of survival for tracking a creature through the woods. They also might use Jump instead of Climb to scale the wall or perhaps Knowledge: Engineering. The point being, there always more than one way to skin a cat.

Also, as I've mentioned previously, look at the different actions as pluses or minuses to the initial diplomacy check, rather than different ways to negotiate. Perhaps the chamberlain is a fan of dancing and by doing so you add a bonus to your diplomacy check. In 4e instead of the plus or minus, it's number of successes before failures.

How does this not exacerbate the wizard dominance problem in 3.x/PF? Wizards are already mechanically encouraged to spend most of their ranks in Knowledge (xxx) skills, in particular, the six monster identification skills. Allowing these skills to also override other skill checks appears to be a large power increase for the wizard at the expense of the skill-based classes (i.e. ranger, rogue, scout).

 

[LostSoul]

Didn't you also have a series of really bad rolls in the beginning?

Yeah - but the confusion I felt wasn't so much because of the failures as it was the structure of play. I hadn't played 4E for a long time at that point. Not that it was such a big problem; it didn't get in the way of my standard narrativist procedure of "play your character passionately". I did make a mental note that I wanted to discuss it later on, I thought there might be something valuable there.

 

[Manbearcat]

I'm going to have to be brief (that may be to our advantage!) as I'm heading out shortly, but I'll try to address.

One of the things that jumped out at me when we first started was that I wasn't sure what my PC could do. Not just because I had a whole suite of powers that I wasn't familiar with; I wasn't sure what the results of success or the consequences of failure would be. I wasn't sure how much I could "push" at what I wanted to do - the scope/scale of any single check. Nor did I know how my actions here would influence the situation in the future. I found it difficult, in the beginning, to decide on a course of action. That cleared up after a few rounds of play, but I felt out of my depth at the start.

I think what is probably at work here is the continuum of abstraction and "zoomage" twixt task resolution and conflict resolution.

In my games, soft transitions (Transition Scenes) between conflicts (Action Scenes where something is at stake) work generally as standard exploratory play. Describe (i) action and (ii) intent with respect to the (iii) fictional positioning > (iv) consult resolution mechanics > result is fairly tightly constrained. It is certainly not outright binary process simulation (especially with 4e's broad descriptor skills), but its much further zoomed in and much less abstracted than when invoking conflict resolution mechanics (Skill Challenge in this case). So there is a fluctuation of zoom-in vs zoom-out, abstract less vs abstract more that takes place.

Further, I think part of it may have just been miscommunication. There is, unfortunately, information loss when you aren't dealing with someone in real time and/or you don't have chemistry with them born of a considerable number of exchanges and table time. I think the below is an example of that:

(Specifically I'm thinking of the first Disguise Self check, where my (unstated!) intent was to sit & talk with the strange, silk-robed fellow. When he dismissed me I wasn't sure how to proceed.)

In this case, your initial Disguise Self (Bluff) check is inherent to the power deployed itself so the intent of the mechanics take precedence. The Illusion spell requires you to make a Bluff check (with + 5 power bonus) opposed by target's Insight check. Success (which occurred in this case) establishes the illusory ruse as successful. You became that gutter rut female (I believe that is what it was from memory) to the target.

If we would have been on the same page about your intent to sit and talk with the figure (with reference to the immediate fictional positioning), I would have asked for Diplomacy at the Hard DC) and then we would have gone from there.

Subsequent to that, we had several other actions (many unsuccessful unfortunately!). Ultimately, things were escalated by Quinn's failed efforts and the NPC response to those efforts. If the fictional positioning warranted it, I would have closed the scene, briefly captured an end to your efforts, and cut back to the other players. However, I felt it made more genre sense and better fit the fictional positioning to escalate it to violence and have the lackey dispatched to take care of you while the Court Mage beat a quick retreat. As such, the situation turned into an Action Scene where we resolved the conflict whereby your information gathering effort was on the line. As it turned out, the evolution of the conflict dictated that you had to save the lackey from the rat swarm and cow him into your employ to achieve it. Which you did.

If things would have gone differently with your checks, it probably would have come to pass that (i) Quinn's efforts would have been completely covert, (ii) Quinn would have discerned that the rod that the figure carried bore the glyph that was on the back of the necks of the ruffians that Theron dispatched, (iii) the signet ring he was wearing was that of the Court Mage, and (iv) they were down there harvesting cadavers (or making their own) for ritual components.

Conversely, you could have just learned some rumors about the Chamberlain if you wanted to go with a Streetwise check.