The Three Pillars and Class Balance

[Mercule]

70%: Core competence. Everyone has this.
0%-15%: Class competence. This is added to core competence based on your class.
0%-15%: Discretionary competence. This is assigned by the player using feats, skills, and so forth.

This, IMO, is a great way to show what I'd like to see. Not that I agree with the numbers, but the general structure. For me, it'd be:

40% core. No one should have to pick their nose during a fight or just watch the rogue explore for an hour, but I'm okay (in favor of) having a pretty big spread.

35-40% class. At it's core, D&D is a class-based system. IMO, the class chosen should have a huge impact on play, well above any other choice or combination of choices, ever.

10% race. I think race should be a meaningful choice and not just fluff. Halfling barbarians shouldn't be able to dish out as much damage as half-orcs, but they should bring other things to the table that may or may not have synergy with your class.

10-15% discretionary. D&D is not a point-buy system and should not be turned into one. Adding some range to characters and the ability to play somewhat against type is a good thing. Plus, there really are abilities that exist outside of the class structure.

Note: The variance in "class" and "discretionary" depend on how you want to handle feats vs. selectable class abilities. Which bucket do weapon specialization, combat styles, reserve feats, turn undead, etc. go into?

 

[Ahnehnois]

Every class should have a basic level of competence in all pillars. Then you get some additional competence to assign based on class and player decisions. Just to throw out some numbers:

70%: Core competence. Everyone has this.
0%-15%: Class competence. This is added to core competence based on your class.
0%-15%: Discretionary competence. This is assigned by the player using feats, skills, and so forth.

In principle, that's a very good approach. Just as long as it's philosophy and the numbers don't actually mean anything. But I do think that there's a base level of competence you should expect for being an adventurer, and D&D suggests that class and your specific choices should add onto it.

 

[Minigiant]

Every class should have a basic level of competence in all pillars. Then you get some additional competence to assign based on class and player decisions. Just to throw out some numbers:

70%: Core competence. Everyone has this.
0%-15%: Class competence. This is added to core competence based on your class.
0%-15%: Discretionary competence. This is assigned by the player using feats, skills, and so forth.

Important: I am not proposing that PCs actually get a pool of "competence points." This is just an example of how one might approach the question during game design. You could balance a class with the idea that "this class is +10% at roleplaying and +5% at combat," or a feat with the idea that "this feat will add +5% to exploration at level 1." Of course this will involve some fudging and guesswork, since roleplaying and exploration are tough to turn into hard numbers.

I'd do the addition in a different manner. D&D is about bonuses.

Let's say at level 1, a typical/average 100% pillar bonus is +10.
+3 from raw ability, +3 from class, +2 from race, +2 from Discretionary.

So 'I'd go
50% Base
15% raw ability
15% class
10% race
10% Discretionary

Bob is a fighter as has a 16 in the fighter's primary ability score. He also either uses his race's favored weapon, is a + Str/Dex/Con race (matches fighter's main abilities), or is of a race with a strong combat feature. Bob also took a combat feat. Foturnately Bob is of a race with an exploration bonus too and his 16 matches to social interaction too.

Bob is a ~100% combat/60% explore/65%social character.

Jane the rogue, an exploration class. She took all social discretionaries. Luckily her abilities match all 3 pillar for her class and her race matches combat and exploration.

Jane is a ~75%.combat/90% explore/75%social character.

Although Bob is much better in a fight and Jane clearly leads Bob when exploring; they aren't too far apart in social interactions. Jane is clearly better at conversations but Bob is close enough to make the rolls in the right situations.

 

[Sunseeker]

Every class need not be equal in every area, but all classes should by default, be at least useful to some degree in all areas and particularly good in combat. If a player wants to be so un-diplomatic that they can walk away from the table when it's not combat? That's their choice. However players should always be able to have some way to contribute to any given situation.

 

[Savage Wombat]

As always, my concern is not with characters giving up combat focus to be better outside of combat. I dislike it when the game allows characters to give up social skills for greater combat ability. ("I traded away my ability to wink for a bonus feat.")

Call it bad DMing if you want, but exploration and social encounters are usually not as carefully balanced to the players' abilities as combat encounters. And when one character dominates the opposition in combat, the combats usually get tougher over time as a result. Making it harder for the non-combat-optimized characters to survive, let alone shine.

I'm happy to allow someone to focus on other aspects of gaming at a cost in combat edge; that's their choice. But the power-gamers must be kept in check for the good of the game. And though that doesn't require forced balance, it requires limiting imbalance.

 

[KesselZero]

I want characters to be balanced across all three pillars, but that means I want the game to be balanced across all three pillars, too. What bugs me about 4e is that it's all about combat, with a token exploration system (skill challenges) that kind of stinks but at least has a rewards framework, and no rewards framework for roleplaying unless you force it into skill challenges. I hope 5e will have rewards frameworks for all three pillars, so I can run a game that's light on combat (for example) and it won't take my players forever to level up (as is the case in my 4e campaign). I think returning to a simpler, less tactical, faster combat system will go a long way towards making the split more even.

That being said, I'm hoping that I'm reading correctly that for 5e, the designers are looking to flatten the playing field a bit outside of combat as well. That is to say, in 4e we have specific PCs dominating specific skills, so the low-CHA fighter has nothing to do in a social encounter and the low-Perception PCs watch the rogue do all the trapfinding, etc. etc. I get the vibe that the direction 5e is heading is towards smaller bonuses all around, starting with your ability scores (hopefully a little less min-maxed than 4e's 18-or-higher starting requirement) and adding small situational bonuses. To sum up: your fighter can still be useful in social situations because the bard only has +5 higher Diplomacy overall, not +10 or +15, and the difficulty curve is flatter accordingly. This would be the "convincing the duke" equivalent of the designers' stated goal of making orcs meaningful for ten (or whatever) levels of play.

 

[Ratskinner]

Apparently I've voted for the two current favorite options:

• Every class should be as good when considered across the pillars.
• Character options should allow trading skill in one pillar for skill in another.

I figure its absolutely pointless to try and balance the classes ab initio. Simply put, campaigns are too different. They should be. So, make sure that each class has options and advancements that allow the Character to adapt to the campaign.

 

[Mattachine]

By the way, 4e definitely has a reward system for roleplay-only, which is the quest award. Those types of awards are given for accomplishing tasks, combat, skill, or something else.

All editions actually have quest awards, but earlier ones built them into published modules (usually bonus xp for finishing), rather than making such rewards part of the core rules.

 

[Ratskinner]

By the way, 4e definitely has a reward system for roleplay-only, which is the quest award. Those types of awards are given for accomplishing tasks, combat, skill, or something else.

All editions actually have quest awards, but earlier ones built them into published modules (usually bonus xp for finishing), rather than making such rewards part of the core rules.

I can't remember for 3e, but I definitely remember 2e having such a rule. It was not very well codified, and I thought the awards suggested were paltry, but I do remember it.

 

[KesselZero]

That's a fair point, [MENTION=6678226]Mattachine[/MENTION], and I'll admit I forgot all about it. But I'd still disagree that it's meant as a roleplay-only reward system. It's presented-- at least this is the impression I got from the DMG-- more as it was used in modules as you describe, as bonus XP for finishing ("save the town from the hobgoblin menace"). It does get used for side-quests and PC-specific goals ("rescue your old mentor from the dungeon you're delving") but while that does support character development, it's not really roleplay-specific. Overall my impression of quest XP was always that it's just bonus for doing stuff in the adventure, and the adventure is still mostly combats and a few skill challenges. If you have a different reading of it, or use it in a different way, I'd love to hear it!