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

[DEFCON 1]

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.

Yeah... I just don't get it. To have a class be deliberately bad at something with no opportunity of getting mediocre (let alone good) is pretty much having Roles by another name. Based upon your comments on the earlier pages... it seemed like you were someone who didn't want roles hardwired onto classes. But apparently you do. And you want those roles being MUCH WORSE than what the game currently has.

I suspect you are in an exceedingly small minority on this one. And I don't think you'll ever be able to find a class-based game which will satisfy you, because no designer worth his salt will ever design a class to be THAT BAD at something. It makes no sense. There's no reason why the player can't just do it, rather than the game forcing them to.

 

[DEFCON 1]

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.

But the things is... THEY DON'T. Roles do not ASSURE you of being good at combat. You know why? Because the player has the choice to not build his character the way the game assumes he will, even in 4E.

You want to be a Cleric who sucks at combat? Keep your STR at 8 and take all STR-based powers. There. Done. Your attack bonus is now like 5 points less than the Cleric the game expects you to have. Throw in a 10 CON, and take a weapon you aren't proficient in... and you now SUCK at combat. Easy-peasy. And you now have all those great high ability scores to spend on the abilities that raise those skills you want. You are a clerical skill-monkey who can't fight his way out of a paper bag.

And the game didn't have to FORCE you to do it... you did it yourself.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Yeah... I just don't get it. To have a class be deliberately bad at something with no opportunity of getting mediocre (let alone good) is pretty much having Roles by another name. Based upon your comments on the earlier pages... it seemed like you were someone who didn't want roles hardwired onto classes. But apparently you do. And you want those roles being MUCH WORSE than what the game currently has.

I suspect you are in an exceedingly small minority on this one. And I don't think you'll ever be able to find a class-based game which will satisfy you, because no designer worth his salt will ever design a class to be THAT BAD at something. It makes no sense. There's no reason why the player can't just do it, rather than the game forcing them to.

I think we simply disagree defcon. Clearly my opinion differs from your own on all counts (especially your last paragraph). However i do understand and appreciate your position. I could be misreading you, but you seem overly hostile to my position. It is one thing to not like what i am proposing, quite another to suggest no designer worth his salt would attempt it (there are lots of different approaches to game design).

I do not see my position at all inconsistent. I want the option of playing a character weak at combat and strong in other areas, having classes that are combat weak but strong elsewhere gives me that option (and it makes class selection meaningful).

 

[Bedrockgames]

But the things is... THEY DON'T. Roles do not ASSURE you of being good at combat. You know why? Because the player has the choice to not build his character the way the game assumes he will, even in 4E.

You want to be a Cleric who sucks at combat? Keep your STR at 8 and take all STR-based powers. There. Done. Your attack bonus is now like 5 points less than the Cleric the game expects you to have. Throw in a 10 CON, and take a weapon you aren't proficient in... and you now SUCK at combat. Easy-peasy. And you now have all those great high ability scores to spend on the abilities that raise those skills you want. You are a clerical skill-monkey who can't fight his way out of a paper bag.

And the game didn't have to FORCE you to do it... you did it yourself.

Except the class powers in 4E are still oriented around combat and many dont even rely on STR or CON. Look Defcon, we just disagree. But i dont see this going down a good road if we kee at this. I have given my position, and you have given yours. Obviously the designers of next will be hard pressed to produce an edition both you and I enjoy

 

[Kynn]

Except the class powers in 4E are still oriented around combat and many dont even rely on STR or CON.

But you can just choose the ones which do.

Here's Brother Gregg the Unworthy:

====== Created Using Wizards of the Coast D&D Character Builder ======
Brother Gregg, level 7
Human, Cleric (Templar)
Cleric Option: Healer's Lore
Human Power Selection Option: Heroic Effort

FINAL ABILITY SCORES
STR 8, CON 10, DEX 13, INT 16, WIS 18, CHA 14

STARTING ABILITY SCORES
STR 8, CON 10, DEX 13, INT 15, WIS 15, CHA 14


AC: 19 Fort: 14 Ref: 17 Will: 20
HP: 52 Surges: 7 Surge Value: 13

TRAINED SKILLS
Arcana +14, Diplomacy +11, History +14, Insight +13, Perception +13, Religion +14

UNTRAINED SKILLS
Acrobatics +6, Athletics +4, Bluff +8, Dungeoneering +10, Endurance +5, Heal +10, Intimidate +8, Nature +10, Stealth +6, Streetwise +8, Thievery +6

POWERS
Basic Attack: Melee Basic Attack
Basic Attack: Ranged Basic Attack
Human Racial Power: Heroic Effort
Cleric Feature: Divine Fortune
Cleric Attack: Punish the Profane
Cleric Utility: Healing Word
Bard Feature: Majestic Word
Cleric Attack 1: Battle Cleric's Weapon Mastery
Cleric Attack 1: Weapon of Divine Protection
Cleric Attack 1: Weapon of Enforced Serenity
Cleric Attack 1: Gift of Incomparable Strength
Cleric Utility 2: Divine Skill
Cleric Attack 3: Words Are Not Enough
Cleric Attack 5: Rune of Peace
Cleric Utility 6: Holy Lantern
Cleric Attack 7: Awe Strike

FEATS
Level 1: Bardic Knowledge
Level 1: Ritual Caster
Level 1: Bardic Dilettante
Level 2: Bard of All Trades
Level 4: Disciple of Lore
Level 6: Building Camaraderie

ITEMS
Ritual Book
Comprehend Language
Create Holy Water
Dust of Arcane Insight
Map of Unseen Lands
Bag of Holding
Animal Messenger
Portend Weather
Make Whole
Create Campsite
Tenser's Floating Disk
Silence
Hold Portal
Brew Potion
Alarm
Seek Rumor
Water Walk
Endure Elements
Continual Light
Read Omens
Fluid Funds
Detect Secret Doors
Delay Affliction
Adventurer's Kit
Chainmail x1
Holy Symbol x2
Greatclub x1
Residuum (Any)
====== End ======

He's terrible in combat, but he can do a heck of a lot of stuff outside of combat.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Except the class powers in 4E are still oriented around combat and many dont even rely on STR or CON.

Actually... if this quote is truly your real issue... then it seems like we're actually talking about two different things here.

If the real issue here for you is that 4E's primary game mechanics in the books all fall mainly under the umbrella of 'combat'... then you're absolutely correct. If you look at the number of pages of rules text in the PH that are how combat works and what a PC can do in combat... then yes, absolutely, you're right. And in that regard, it does make all the class seem as though they are about combat (since that's what most of their rules all deal with).

I'm right there with you on that score. And if your point is that you'd like to see classes who have less rules about combat attributed to it... then yeah, I understand completely and in many ways agree with you. I think it'd be great if there were many more game rules in D&D that deal with the exploration and interaction pillars than what we currently have, since the only real game mechanics in 4E for both are 'skill challenges'. But that's a single mechanic in use for two pillars, both only really involving skills (and whose mechanics are in no way as in-depth a system as 4E's combat is.)

So I think I'm getting closer in understanding what you mean. It's not that you need some classes to be inherently bad at something (like combat)... you just don't want most of the game rules to focus on one aspect of the game at the expense of all the others. Because what 4E does right now is give the impression that all classes are about combat since most of the rules found in each class section primarily help to describe and accomplish it.

Thus, if 5E has more comprehensive exploration and interaction mechanics, some classes can have their rules and abilities primarily focus on those parts of the game, rather than combat. The combat rules for that class might be nothing more than listing its hit points, armor class, and basic attack. It's not that the class is BAD at combat necessarily... it's more that there's just few rules in the class description talking about it.

 

[howandwhy99]

Now, this is an intriguing raison d'être for classes. To determine what aspects of the game world the player of the character is rewarded for engaging with. A sort of character-specific set of "victory conditions" (as far as any such thing is relevant to any RPG - which is to say only in a fairly restrained and ongoing way).

I think you're personal views in parentheses could restrain RPG play and design. Role playing is much bigger than that. As to XP rewarding players I don't see that as the point of XP at all. Many, many resources can be gained players playing a character. Class XP is only one kind. It may not valuable for a player if they don't see it as such, but playing one's class role well is a pretty common objective in role playing games and for RPG gamers.

Nope - for me, this is just back to describing what the classes have traditionally done. Mushy "look-and-feel" that really holds no value, either in-game or meta-game.

For me, if no one plays a fighter, D&D isn't a really a combat game anymore. If you're not talking about D&D as solely a combat game, then what game for assessing value are you referring to when making your judgements above?

I disagree with the limitation to "combat", but I do think that in a game about "adventuring" every character should be assured of some ability to "adventure" - in all the major aspects of that activity.

Would you agree engaging with traps is a kind of adventure? The classes (roles) are defining the major aspects of adventuring. There are others beyond those offered, but the classes define the scope of adventure the game does offer.

You lost me, here. Everyone in D&D takes part in confrontation and also gets resources (treasure) - don't they?

Yep, they are part of playing any of the classes, so the overlap of all three circles in the "you wish" segment of the .pic was what I was referring to for their position in D&D.

 

[Balesir]

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.

I'm not sure "bad at" isn't a sort of tangent to what I was thinking of, actually. What I had in mind was more "doesn't have any sort of contribution to make for..."

Controllers and Leaders (Wizards and Bards, for example) sometimes aren't particularly "good at" combat in the sense that, if caught alone by some toughs they will struggle. But, when the entire party is engaged in a fight, they have support functions that they can perform. A low level Wizard with only ranged control powers is going to be in a tough place if ambushed by a bunch of thugs in an alley, but when protected by his buddies in a melee he can make a full contribution to the team.

Likewise, I see 'roles' for non-combat as being things to contribute, not solo puissance. A burly but uneducated sort of character, for example, may be able to charm the ladies with animal magnetism, and this could help in a general, mixed social encounter in a multitude of ways - but corner him and ask for an academic debate and he'll be a total fish out of water.

I think you're personal views in parentheses could restrain RPG play and design. Role playing is much bigger than that. As to XP rewarding players I don't see that as the point of XP at all. Many, many resources can be gained players playing a character. Class XP is only one kind. It may not valuable for a player if they don't see it as such, but playing one's class role well is a pretty common objective in role playing games and for RPG gamers.

We seem to be at cross purposes, or something; I wasn't intending to limit my comments to XP, either, although they might be part of the picture. "Rewards" and "victory conditions" are, indeed, extremely varied in RPGs, I agree.

For me, if no one plays a fighter, D&D isn't a really a combat game anymore. If you're not talking about D&D as solely a combat game, then what game for assessing value are you referring to when making your judgements above?

Again, I don't see this limited to combat. In fact, you could say that "focussing the players on what we want the game to be about" is part of what I see roles being for. Which, to expand further, is why it's a shame that 4E gave roles only for combat - thus subtly saying "combat is what we want you to focus on". If roles had been given for social encounters and exploration, perhaps it would have been clearer that these were intended to be foci of play, as well.

Would you agree engaging with traps is a kind of adventure? The classes (roles) are defining the major aspects of adventuring. There are others beyond those offered, but the classes define the scope of adventure the game does offer.

Is this you agreeing with what I am saying about "there should be roles for social interaction, exploration AND combat, or am I misunderstanding?

As a bit of an aside, I'm not sure it's useful to put roles for all three "pillars" into the class. Having them split over class, theme and so on would likely be more flexible and adaptable.

Yep, they are part of playing any of the classes, so the overlap of all three circles in the "you wish" segment of the .pic was what I was referring to for their position in D&D.

Oh, I see - I understood the graphic a different way. I saw the "You Wish!" as meaning that you will never (realistically) get all these three things in one operating system. It's sort of like the old garage sign: "We do three kinds of repairs - good, quick and cheap. You can have any two."

 

[howandwhy99]

Is this you agreeing with what I am saying about "there should be roles for social interaction, exploration AND combat, or am I misunderstanding?

As a bit of an aside, I'm not sure it's useful to put roles for all three "pillars" into the class. Having them split over class, theme and so on would likely be more flexible and adaptable.

You know I think we're closer in agreement than I first thought. The D&Dn designers are talking about categorizing three focuses of play: social interaction (nominally role play), exploration, and combat. I suppose those spheres of engagement could be considered roles too, but I think a solid Class (role) should cover all three to some degree.

For me Class == Role in D&D. 4E combat roles made sense in the rock-scissors-paper combat design that goes much farther back in wargaming and military science history than 71's Chainmail game. I've mentioned before I think they are a carryover of the infantry-cavalry-artillery theory, but with computer and console combat roles built in as well. I don't think these should be the first and foremost design considerations though.

Interlocking role design like the above could conceivably be built into the designers' other two spheres of action as separate game designs, but I'd hesitate limiting classes even that much. It's good game design to be sure, it's simply predetermining a second level of class categorizing upon the first (actually named class) like 4E did with Roles & Classes. It isn't necessary.

The classes themselves focus the sphere of adventure for the game by character. Enabling more activities, even more than the 3 suggested, can be done (perhaps with modularity) without taking anything away from the niche each class offers.

Each class engages in combat as per their class abilities and advancement goals first, combat roles are secondary and decided upon by the player. Maybe the M-U wants to be a meatshield this time? That's their choice, but by historical design that means it is tougher for them.

Socializing mechanics, exploration mechanics, and anything else they can dream up mechanics need only cover the classes they are being designed for. Crafting is generally outside of all the core classes, but a rule supplement could be provided that played it up for each, and each in their own specific way. Weapons, clerical implements, arcane book design, refining thieves' tools, etc. Personally that's beyond the scope of the game for me and more in the realm of NPC classes, but its possible the players want to spend some hours of gaming playing at crafting waterskins and whatnot.

 

[Sunseeker]

but I think a solid Class (role) should cover all three to some degree.

I agree, though the degree to which a class focuses on any one aspect should be up to the player's particular build. A fighter should be a pretty typical staple of any fantasy world, but if the game only designs them for combat, we won't see them in exploration and socialization games, which they should be in. If Wizards can provide us the tools to make our characters combat, skill, or exploration junkies, or some mix of that, then I think any class is going to be pretty well off.