The Three Pillars and Class Balance
- Thread starter Hassassin
- Start date
Li Shenron
Legend
Overall balance across the pillar, then let character options allow for shifting such balance towards your pillar(s) of choice.
This.
By default, you play an adventurer that ventures into monster filled dungeons and fight dragons.
If you want to do something else, you can trade some of your ability to travel in dungeons and fight dragons to do be better at other things.
My opinion: Every class should be as good when considered across the pillars. Character options should allow trading skill in one pillar for skill in another.
The default could look something like the below. 1-5 are how good the class is at the thing; c, e, i are the pillars.
Cleric: 4c, 3e, 4i
Fighter: 5c, 4e, 2i
Rogue: 3c, 3-5e, 3-5i (sum 11)
Wizard: all 1-5 (sum 11)
Think of the number as a level adjustment when comparing characters. A 3rd level rogue, 2nd level cleric and a 1st level fighter would be about as good in combat by default.
The default could look something like the below. 1-5 are how good the class is at the thing; c, e, i are the pillars.
Cleric: 4c, 3e, 4i
Fighter: 5c, 4e, 2i
Rogue: 3c, 3-5e, 3-5i (sum 11)
Wizard: all 1-5 (sum 11)
Think of the number as a level adjustment when comparing characters. A 3rd level rogue, 2nd level cleric and a 1st level fighter would be about as good in combat by default.
avin
First Post
That would force stereotypes... all Fighters are dumb in conversation, all Rogues are jack of trades... but sometimes I want to play a diplomatic warrior or a assassin with no interest in social interaction...
It didn't work well in 3.5.
And Wizards 1-5 based on what spells are memorized in that day sounds like Red Mage's dream...
Each class should, by default, be at least competent in each pillar. No class should be, through any selection of options, be completely dominant in any pillar.
"As good in combat" is so vague as to be quite meaningless. A 4E fighter, rogue, cleric, and wizard are all competent in combat, but are they "as good" as each other? How do you measure that?
The rogue can't fill the fighter's shoes. He'd probably die quite rapidly if he attempted to. He can't even start to fill the cleric's shoes, as he has no ability to heal or buff. He might, if he tries really hard, step on the wizard's toes a bit.
Is the rogue bad in combat? Not in the slightest. Give him an inch and he takes a mile. Focus on the fighter over there trying to attract your attention, and the rogue is going to walk up behind you and mess you up. He'll leave you prone, blind, and bleeding out. Try and catch him and he'll tumble away to go mess with the next person not paying as much attention as he should.
They each have areas where they overlap a bit with each other's skill sets, but any straight-up attempt to say "the fighter is better in combat than the rogue" or "the wizard is better in combat than the cleric" comes down to comparing apples and oranges.
That's what I want in all of the pillars. I want each class to be able to contribute meaningfully in each, without having to sacrifice basic competence in the other pillars.
Some wiggle room is fine. If someone wants to focus their character on Exploration, and doesn't want to grow beyond their class's basic competence in Social or Combat situations, fine.
I'm even fine with people who want to make their characters incompetent in one or two pillars. I just don't want that to be the default. I also don't want hyper-specialization to be over-rewarded.
Allowing incompetence as an option people can enter into with eyes wide open is fine. Letting it be a trap people can stumble into or be forced into is not.
I want rogues who are tricksters and scoundrels. I want fighters who are stalwart and strong. I want wizards who are masters of arcane lore. I want clerics who are wise and powerful. I want all of them to be all of these things in all three pillars.
"As good in combat" is so vague as to be quite meaningless. A 4E fighter, rogue, cleric, and wizard are all competent in combat, but are they "as good" as each other? How do you measure that?
The rogue can't fill the fighter's shoes. He'd probably die quite rapidly if he attempted to. He can't even start to fill the cleric's shoes, as he has no ability to heal or buff. He might, if he tries really hard, step on the wizard's toes a bit.
Is the rogue bad in combat? Not in the slightest. Give him an inch and he takes a mile. Focus on the fighter over there trying to attract your attention, and the rogue is going to walk up behind you and mess you up. He'll leave you prone, blind, and bleeding out. Try and catch him and he'll tumble away to go mess with the next person not paying as much attention as he should.
They each have areas where they overlap a bit with each other's skill sets, but any straight-up attempt to say "the fighter is better in combat than the rogue" or "the wizard is better in combat than the cleric" comes down to comparing apples and oranges.
That's what I want in all of the pillars. I want each class to be able to contribute meaningfully in each, without having to sacrifice basic competence in the other pillars.
Some wiggle room is fine. If someone wants to focus their character on Exploration, and doesn't want to grow beyond their class's basic competence in Social or Combat situations, fine.
I'm even fine with people who want to make their characters incompetent in one or two pillars. I just don't want that to be the default. I also don't want hyper-specialization to be over-rewarded.
Allowing incompetence as an option people can enter into with eyes wide open is fine. Letting it be a trap people can stumble into or be forced into is not.
I want rogues who are tricksters and scoundrels. I want fighters who are stalwart and strong. I want wizards who are masters of arcane lore. I want clerics who are wise and powerful. I want all of them to be all of these things in all three pillars.
Last edited:
That's why "Character options should allow trading skill in one pillar for skill in another."
The default for classes should be archetypal if not stereotypical.
Exactly. No "generic" Fighter should be as good at exploration as a Ranger.
IMHO, classes should have a primary and even some a secondary role, something along the lines of what Fantasy Craft did.
* Assassin: Talker / Combatant
* Fighter (soldier): Combatant
* Monk: Combatant
* Paladin: Wildcard / Combatant (depends on your faith and powers)
* Priest: Wildcard / Backer (depends on your faith and spells)
* Ranger (scout): Combatant / Solver
* Rogue (Burglar): Specialist / Combatant
* Warlord: Backer / Combatant
* Wizard: Wildcard (all depends on the spells you have)
You could then have other classes like:
* Alchemist: Backer
* Courtier: Talker / Backer
* Emissary: Solver / Backer
* Explorer: Solver
* Keeper (artisan/merchant): Specialist
* Lancer (knight/cavalier): Combatant / Talker
* Sage: Backer / Wildcard (depends on your fields of study)
* Swashbuckler: Talker / Combatant
Ahnehnois
First Post
There should be a minimum and maximum acceptable degree of competence in any domain, but characters need to be diverse. Some should be good at combat, some not. Some should be social, some not. Some should be perceptive, some not.
It's also good to have flexibility. I'm all for having a talkative barbarian as an option, if not the default.
I think the three pillars are a rather reductionistic approach. Where does crafting fall into that, for instance (perhaps this focus is why D&D rules struggle to accomodate crafting)? There are also a number of really disparate activities (puzzle solving, research, business) that I'm guessing are being shoehorned into exploration. Honestly I just wouldn't think about this kind of stuff too much. Just make a fighter.
It's also good to have flexibility. I'm all for having a talkative barbarian as an option, if not the default.
I think the three pillars are a rather reductionistic approach. Where does crafting fall into that, for instance (perhaps this focus is why D&D rules struggle to accomodate crafting)? There are also a number of really disparate activities (puzzle solving, research, business) that I'm guessing are being shoehorned into exploration. Honestly I just wouldn't think about this kind of stuff too much. Just make a fighter.
Similar Threads
