Narrative Space Options for non-spellcasters

[Tuft]

Yes, but is that a failing among warriors, or a gratuitous level of ability among the spellcasters? There's no consensus on the issue, as there are strong arguments both ways - hence, there's some credit for the argument that spellcasters need to have their options dialed back, rather than have the warriors' options increased.

Lets assume we have an RPG X, where the fighter lives up to its name, and is, well, best at *fighting* - best armored, best at handling weapons, best at tactics. Also assume that narrative control over non-combat situations are equal among classes. What weakness *should* the Fighter have in this fictive system to balance this?

 

[Alzrius]

Lets assume we have an RPG X, where the fighter lives up to its name, and is, well, best at *fighting* - best armored, best at handling weapons, best at tactics. Also assume that narrative control over non-combat situations are equal among classes. What weakness *should* the Fighter have in this fictive system to balance this?

I've emboldened the part where you lost me. The whole point of the fighter - at least as I've been postulating it for the purposes of this discussion - is that this is a class that has unmatched narrative options only where combat is concerned, and exceedingly few in all other narrative situations.

Given that, you've removed the fighter's key weakness, and then asked what weakness it should have...which seems, to me, to undercut the point.

 

[Starfox]

I think making the fighter a lot more powerful in combat is not the way to go - at least not from Pathfinder where fighters are considerably buffed from 3.5. No, what we want is to spread the competence of the different classes across a wider field.

Say we say there are the "three legs" of narrative space: Combat, social, exploration. How do the 4 classic classes do in this list? I'll try a ranking on a 1-5 scale (this is pathfinder, and based on my impression)

Fighter
Combat 5
Social 2 (Intimidation)
Exploration: 1 (armor check penalty)
Sum: 8

Rogue
Combat 2
Social 4 (skills)
Exploration: 4 (skills, class abilities)
Sum:10

Cleric
Combat 4
Social 3 (Diplomacy, possibly higher with domains)
Exploration: 5 (find the path, speak with dead)
Sum: 11

Wizard
Combat 4
Social 4 (charm)
Exploration: 5 (divination)
Sum: 13

So, even assuming the fighter is actually the best at combat, it is still the least competent overall. And I feel I've rated spellcasters rather low, especially at higher levels. Increasing the fighter's rating in combat might be an option if we feel it is behind other classes in combat (which I feel it isn't), but otherwise it feels a lot more constructive to buff classes where they are weak - that is the social/exploration side of the fighter and the combat side of the rogue.

 

[Tuft]

I've emboldened the part where you lost me. The whole point of the fighter - at least as I've been postulating it for the purposes of this discussion - is that this is a class that has unmatched narrative options only where combat is concerned, and exceedingly few in all other narrative situations.

Given that, you've removed the fighter's key weakness, and then asked what weakness it should have...which seems, to me, to undercut the point.

I was referring to the point where some, not necessarily you, want fighters to have equal amount of out-of-combat narrative control as other classes. I think somebody mentioned playing a card that made a wall climb "not a problem" being equal to a climb spell, for example. So I just used your post as a launch-board for wondering "If you *do* make the fighter equal in *all* sorts of narrative options, how can you afford to make him as good at fighting as the name implies?"

Or, if you, still in a theoretical non-existing system, make him superior at combat narrative, what narrative should he be inferior in?

Note that I am asking how things *ought* to be, *not* how they currently are in various D&D incarnations...

 

[Starfox]

is that [narrative imbalance] a failing among warriors, or a gratuitous level of ability among the spellcasters? There's no consensus on the issue, as there are strong arguments both ways - hence, there's some credit for the argument that spellcasters need to have their options dialed back, rather than have the warriors' options increased.

This depends on what game you want to play, or rather on how much mud and grit you want in your game. Since wizards that fly have always been a part of DnD, the DnD tradition is to have rather little mud - at least past level 5 or so. DnD is fantastic fantasy rather than gritty fantasy and should be balanced around that assumption. Nothing prevents a plug-in module or out-branching game to be more gritty, but that is not how DnD has been. Even "F*ing Fantasy Vietnam" has choppers and agent orange equivalents.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Bear in mind that the spell memorisation classes such as cleric, wizard and druid can become whatever they want to be after a night's rest. A wizard can memorise all divination spells or all social, or a mix, whatever he thinks is most appropriate. That's an option the rogue and fighter don't have.

I don't particularly like rpg characters that can do anything, at least not in a game with three or more other players. They're too powerful and they lack a clear cut schtick. This is one reason I prefer sorcerers and favored souls to wizards and clerics. The spontaneous casters also have the advantage of not slowing the game down for the other players while the day's spells are selected.

 

[Starfox]

So, even assuming the fighter is actually the best at combat, it is still the least competent overall. And I feel I've rated spellcasters rather low, especially at higher levels. Increasing the fighter's rating in combat might be an option if we feel it is behind other classes in combat (which I feel it isn't), but otherwise it feels a lot more constructive to buff classes where they are weak - that is the social/exploration side of the fighter and the combat side of the rogue.

I've set these rating by what I feel is the consensus here at ENworld. Looking at my own game table, I feel I've rather over rated the casters. Sure you can use charm to be a social wizard - but that often has repercussions afterwards. And invisibility might make the wizard a decent sneak, but it makes the rogue a great one. And Haste doesn't really improve a wizard much at all. Sure, these buffs might originate with a spellcaster, but the actual camera time (which I feel is what the players are competing for) goes to the buffed character, not the buffer.

 

[Ahnehnois]

I've set these rating by what I feel is the consensus here at ENworld.

Consensus? ENWorld? That would kind of defeat the point of the site.

That being said, I don't really buy the three domains or pillars or whatever you want to call them. Investigation, for one seems to be quite distinct from social or exploration. Then there's the crafting and professions and other downtime/nonadventuring stuff (the stuff in Ultimate Campaign, if we're talking Pathfinder). And really, quite a few other oddball situations.

But let's set that aside for a moment. Fighters are fairly limited in their out-of-combat performance under the rules. Your casters aren't quite as limited in their in-combat performance (though it depends greatly how they're built and what level everyone is) and can do quite a bit outside of combat. Which is closer to the ideal class, a mix of compelling strengths and meaningful weaknesses? I'd argue the fighter is closer to the ideal. It needs to be built up in some areas to make it more interesting, but the casters also need some limits.

 

[MJS]

First off, please allow for the fact that with many different ways to play, what works for you may not work for someone else. What looks like "not broken" to you may be a major issue to someone else.

The problem isn't about "play your character more interestingly". The issue isn't about being interesting internally, but having ability to interact with the world. The number of people who are satisfied with playing an entirely internal game, where they don't really have impact on how events unfold, but instead just react to the unfolding of events, are small. Most folks like to be able to help steer the ship, so to speak.

And apparently, spell powers and skills allow these people to feel this way? I think those players should just play a goddamn fighter/mage and be done with it. It's not as if fighters are actually excluded from a narrative lead, or interaction, outside combat. That's ridiculous.
Yeah, I think it really is a matter of playing more. "Interestingly" isn't the best way to say it. Get over the spell envy, and just do stuff. Ability to interact with the world is not a class ability, it is a measure of player / DM skill.
In my opinion. Play what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law...

 

[Starfox]

And apparently, spell powers and skills allow these people to feel this way? I think those players should just play a goddamn fighter/mage and be done with it....

OP chiming in. Again.

Please, questioning the very viability of narrative space options falls outside subject of this thread. Feel free to start a thread on that, but don't obstruct the discussion here by questioning the very basis of the discussion.