The Three Pillars and Class Balance

[pemerton]

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.

I know that what you've posted is just a sketch, but I don't think thinking of it as level adjustment is really viable.

If a 3rd level rogue is no better than a 1st level fighter in combat, then when a 3rd level party with a rogue in it gets into combat, the rogue will be close to useless. Whereas when a 17th level party with a rogue in it gets into combat, the rogue will be fine if a little weak. At least as D&D has generally been structured, the effect of a level penalty is not uniform across the spectrum of levels.

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?

<snip>

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.

<snip>

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.

This is what I would like to see.

You are entitled to a small benefit in exchange for sacrificing access to one of the pillars

I think this has to be very, very carefully handled.

I will use Rolemaster as an example of a system which tackles this issue very conservatively. Depending on class, skills have varying costs. The default costing for a skill is X/Y, where X is the cost to buy one rank in the skill when one gains a level, and Y is the cost to buy a second rank in the skill when gaining a level. (Y is greater than or equal to X).

Fighters can get weaopn costs around 1/4 or 1/5, wheras thieves are around 3/6 or 3/7. And costs for climbing, stealth etc are roughly the inverse (ie 1/X for thieves, 3/X for fighters). This doesn't allow the fighter to get a better weapon skill than the thief (or vice versa for thieving skills), but it allows the fighter to get more weapon skills (in RM, each weapon category is a separate skill). A fighter is also far more likely to be able to afford to develop two ranks per level - but because RM works on a diminishing returns approach to skill ranks, this doesn't mean that the fighter's skill will be massively better than the thief's.

Anyway, this is a pretty structured and constrained system of skill acquisition. The ability of one class to pull ahead of another class in a skill, in virtue of the cheaper skill costs, is tightly constrained - by the double development cost, by the diminishing returns, and by the hard cap of 2 skill ranks maximum per level no matter how cheap the costs.

Nevertheless, by mid-levels hardly any RM thieves will be competitive in a fight when compared to an RM fighter, and at high levels the gap just grows wider. This isn't necessarily a problem as such, but it is a problem in a game in which each PC is expected to participate, to whatever extent and without actively holding back the party, in each pillar.

So I'm not sure that there should be any reward on the PC-build side at all for taking a flaw/disadvantage. Remove the incentives for hyperspecialisation. If there are to be mechanical rewards for flaws/disadvantages, I'd be looking at the action resolution side instead (eg if your disadvanatage comes into play, get a 4e-style action point - then when your time to shine comes around, you'll be able to contribute better without thereby mechancially overshadowing the other PCs).

 

[pemerton]

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 think this is an excellent post. D&D has a long tradition of having combat mechanics that are distinct from its more general action resolution mechanics ("roll a d6" in AD&D, checks in 3E and 4e), the crunchiest part of the game, and more severe in story consequences for failure (typically PC death).

An approach to "balancing across pillars" that doesn't recognise this tradition in the game runs the risk of failing. Furthermore, there is the fact that individual tables may often depart from the tradition in distinctive and unpredictable ways. Another burden on the successful design of "balancing across pillars".

 

[pemerton]

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.

As well as quest XP, there are also the roleplaying XP awards in DMG 2 (essentially, every 15 minutes of sustained and serious roleplay delivers the same XP as defeating a monster of the party's level).

 

[Hassassin]

I know that what you've posted is just a sketch, but I don't think thinking of it as level adjustment is really viable.

If a 3rd level rogue is no better than a 1st level fighter in combat, then when a 3rd level party with a rogue in it gets into combat, the rogue will be close to useless. Whereas when a 17th level party with a rogue in it gets into combat, the rogue will be fine if a little weak. At least as D&D has generally been structured, the effect of a level penalty is not uniform across the spectrum of levels.

Yeah, it was just a sketch, but I hope level progression is such that if some characters fall a few levels behind others they are still able to contribute.

 

[pemerton]

Yeah, it was just a sketch, but I hope level progression is such that if some characters fall a few levels behind others they are still able to contribute.

At low levels, this will require 1st level to be fairly heavily front-loaded (a bit like 4e). But that itself is pretty controversial, as we all know!

 

[Hassassin]

At low levels, this will require 1st level to be fairly heavily front-loaded (a bit like 4e). But that itself is pretty controversial, as we all know!

Front loaded with respect to the progression, yes. It doesn't require them to be tougher than 1st level characters in edition X, which is what the 4e criticism is about.

 

[FireLance]

If the first three options had included the word "approximately", i.e. "Every class should by default be approximately as good in combat/exploration/roleplay", I would have voted for them. As it was, I just voted "Every class should be as good when considered across the pillars" and "Character options should allow trading skill in one pillar for skill in another".

Even the default option doesn't need to be perfectly balanced. Some scope for differentiation, perhaps a 20% differential in effectiveness, would still be acceptable in my book. Character options should enable wider differentiation, but I would still prefer that it be capped out at around 60%.

 

[Mattachine]

As pemerton pointed out, roleplay xp is specifically discussed in the 4e DMG2.

Alas, like so many of the best parts of 4th edition, it came in a later book (DMG2, Essentials, Monster Vault).

 

[KesselZero]

Huh, how did I miss that? I've read that book. Weird. Well, I most certainly stand corrected.

Has anyone used this system? Did it work? It just sounds a little afterthought-y to me. What about an XP-for-RP system that rewarded achievement of goals, so instead of "You guys talked in character for fifteen minutes, here's a bonus" I could say "You chose to handle negotiations with the goblin king this way, and you achieved your goal, here's your XP."

 

[Mattachine]

The goal-based xp system is simply the quest reward as described in DMG. You decide how important the task is (worth 1, 2, 3, etc. "monsters"), then pick an award as appropriate.