L&L: These are not the rules you're looking for

[Balesir]

I dont hold your preferences against you. I can see why some styles of play and some people would prefer this. But this is the opposite of what i want.

Not sure I know what the opposite of this would be. Do you want a classless (as in role-less, niche-less) system? Cool beans - valid approach. But why does D&D (which has never been classless) need to change to that?

Or do you mean that you want any character to be competent in only a subset of the situations they might encounter? Same comments, really.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Not sure I know what the opposite of this would be. Do you want a classless (as in role-less, niche-less) system? Cool beans - valid approach. But why does D&D (which has never been classless) need to change to that?

Or do you mean that you want any character to be competent in only a subset of the situations they might encounter? Same comments, really.

No, what i mean by opposite is I dont want the classes to each have a combat, social and explorations role. Would ike some classes that are all combat, that cover 2 areas, or are spread out over the three. So what I dont like is giving everyone a combat role, social role and exploration role. I like having characters that arent good at combat for example but may shine in other areas. Or by the same token, characters that cant handle social interaction but can wipe the floor in a fight.

 

[Bluenose]

No, what i mean by opposite is I dont want the classes to each have a combat, social and explorations role. Would ike some classes that are all combat, that cover 2 areas, or are spread out over the three. So what I dont like is giving everyone a combat role, social role and exploration role. I like having characters that arent good at combat for example but may shine in other areas. Or by the same token, characters that cant handle social interaction but can wipe the floor in a fight.

Then you're going to have to severely reduce the effectiveness of spells. Because they're going to be Vancian, so that the caster can pick the right spells to be best in combat one day, best in exploration the next, and best in social the one after that, then you're not getting what you say you want.

 

[DEFCON 1]

No, what i mean by opposite is I dont want the classes to each have a combat, social and explorations role. Would ike some classes that are all combat, that cover 2 areas, or are spread out over the three. So what I dont like is giving everyone a combat role, social role and exploration role. I like having characters that arent good at combat for example but may shine in other areas. Or by the same token, characters that cant handle social interaction but can wipe the floor in a fight.

But here's the thing, Bedrock... I don't think it's good for the game or most of the players if it's designed to automatically have certain classes really crappy at certain things. Because a player who wants to make a character really suck at something can most certainly do so if they want (by careful application of ability scores, skill selection, feat selection etc.), without the game having to "help" him doing that. I think it is far better for all the classes be at least somewhat mediocre in all facets of the game, so that those who want their character to be "good" in that mediocre aspect can move up, and those who want him to be "poor" can easily move down.

For example... let's say (by way of example) that classes are designed with 18 points of "power" to be spread out over the three pillars of D&D-- combat, exploration, and interaction. A class that is equally good over all three pillars would have 6 points of combat ability, 6 points of exploration, and 6 points of interaction.

The question then becomes... when designing other classes off of this "middle of the road" class (in terms of power)... how far off the average should they go?

Theoretically... you could open design such that all 18 points could be put into a single pillar, completely forsaking the other two. So a class might have 18 points in combat, and zero in exploration and interaction. But is that actually a good idea? Because balance-wise... your range of power in any particular pillar is now 18 points all the way down to 0. That swing is HUGE. How can you truly balance the game like that? A class that's completely designed around combat standing next to a class with NO combat capability at all (through no efforts of the player himself.) Because we're not talking about a PC that the player himself deliberately gimped... we're talking a class that was designed from the beginning to have NO skill in something. That does not seem to me to be good design.

I for one think it's better off to set at least a minimum level of capability in the design of each pillar for each class. So that you have to have like at least 4 points of power for example. As a result, you might have classes whose power distribution might be:

Combat 6 / Exploration 6 / Interaction 6 - Rogue
Combat 10 / Exploration 4 / Interaction 4 - Fighter
Combat 6 / Exploration 8 / Interaction 4 - Ranger
Combat 4 / Exploration 7 / Interaction 7 - Bard
Combat 7 / Exploration 4 / Interaction 7 - Paladin

Then... these behind-the-scenes building blocks the game designers have set up gets modified BY THE PLAYER based upon his choices of things like ability score, weapon, skills, feats, spells, etc. etc. So if the Fighter (which has been designed to primarily be focused on combat) wants to have a bit more use during interaction and roleplay scenes... he can raise his Charisma stat and take those skills or feats needed to get a 1 or 2 point boost, thereby getting closer to what the default Rogue might start like. Similarily... if you choose a Bard and want him more focused on combat and don't give a rat's ass about exploration... build him the right way so that his combat ability gets better while his exploration is completely ignored. But at least you've chosen to make him suck at exploration, rather than having the game design it for you that way automatically.

At least this way... players can build off of each class to reach at least a GOOD level of competency (compared against the other classes) in any of the three pillars. Which I think is something we'd all like the option of possibly reaching with whichever class we choose.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

The question then becomes... when designing other classes off of this "middle of the road" class (in terms of power)... how far off the average should they go?

Must spread XP. That whole post is entirely sensible. But the XP would have been for asking the right question.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Then you're going to have to severely reduce the effectiveness of spells. Because they're going to be Vancian, so that the caster can pick the right spells to be best in combat one day, best in exploration the next, and best in social the one after that, then you're not getting what you say you want.

Lol. That is a whole other debate. One that would take us far from the topic at hand.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Defcon: good post, but that isn't the kind of game i wish to play. I also think it can be good design to make some classes bad at portions of the game. It depends on what preferences you are trying to accomodate. Your prefered approach may work for you, but i find that leads to games i personally find boring.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Defcon: good post, but that isn't the kind of game i wish to play. I also think it can be good design to make some classes bad at portions of the game. It depends on what preferences you are trying to accomodate. Your prefered approach may work for you, but i find that leads to games i personally find boring.

Well, I would inquire why you require the game itself to give you something that completely sucks outright, rather than just give you the tools to make something completely suck if you so chose (based on how you build your character?) If the end result in both cases is that some part of your character completely sucks... why does the game doing it rather than you doing it somehow make it less "boring"? I'm not sure I understand.

(And on a similar point... doesn't this "forced suckage" pretty much fall in line with the idea of Roles in the first place? The game is TELLING you "this class has NO business doing combat." That pretty much puts it into a specific role then, does it not? You aren't gaining freedom... you're getting shoehorned just the way Roles supposedly do.)

 

[Bedrockgames]

Well, I would inquire why you require the game itself to give you something that completely sucks outright, rather than just give you the tools to make something completely suck if you so chose (based on how you build your character?) If the end result in both cases is that some part of your character completely sucks... why does the game doing it rather than you doing it somehow make it less "boring"? I'm not sure I understand.

Because i think it is a better and more interesting game when some characters will be bad at certain things regardless of build. It is obviously not for you. But personally i like the idea of some classes being bad at aspects of the game and this being part of how they are balanced overall. I just find the whole approach where everyone is basically good at combat dull. Same if everyone is basically good at exploration or basically good at social interaction or investigations.

 

[Bedrockgames]

(And on a similar point... doesn't this "forced suckage" pretty much fall in line with the idea of Roles in the first place? The game is TELLING you "this class has NO business doing combat." That pretty much puts it into a specific role then, does it not? You aren't gaining freedom... you're getting shoehorned just the way Roles supposedly do.)

My issue with roles is that they are centered around combat and designed to make everyone be good at it in some way. The design aim of making sure characters are assured being good at all aspects of the game to stabalize fun over play doesn't appeal to me. Whether it is the way 4e does it (everyone is good at combat) or done by making everyone good at everything. I want more texture in my game, and since d&d is class based, the place to do that is with the classes. If you don't care for this approach,that is fine. I am not here to convert anyone, just give my opinion about what I like.