The rogue, ranger and mage should be equally good at combat, but in different ways. Out of combat, each should have their niche. They should all be good at something, but in different ways. The rogue is good at talking, the ranger good at tracking and the mage is good at knowing and remembering esoteric knowledge learned from ancient tomes.
The Three Pillars and Class Balance
- Thread starter Hassassin
- Start date
Aenghus
Explorer
Concerning lower ability in a pillar, I think it's important that the lower ability is of the "lesser effect" kind, not the "much less chance of any success" kind. With a simple succeed-or-fail sort of check, reducing success chances can soon feel like the player is wasting his time even trying, and encourages the player to just dump all ability in the area to gain extra power in another pillar. After all once they have discounted a particular pillar so e.g. have halved their chances of success, its a lesser sacrifice to dump it completely, and from an action economy point of view better not to waste time on foregone conclusions(e.g. 75% chance of failure), and gain ability at your preferred activity.
For this reason, I prefer a setup where the chances of success or failure stay within a viable range, but the grade of the success (and maybe failure) can vary. This means that players aren't wasting their time attempting tasks they are less good at, but won't be as successful as a specialist. It also means that players who sacrifice ability in an area actually do sacrifice something, their grade of success in that area, but can still try to attempt tasks in that area and not be wasting their time.
For this reason, I prefer a setup where the chances of success or failure stay within a viable range, but the grade of the success (and maybe failure) can vary. This means that players aren't wasting their time attempting tasks they are less good at, but won't be as successful as a specialist. It also means that players who sacrifice ability in an area actually do sacrifice something, their grade of success in that area, but can still try to attempt tasks in that area and not be wasting their time.
I'm A Banana
Potassium-Rich
Aenghus said:
I think of this more as a feature than a bug. A stereotypical wizard might suck pretty hard at direct combat. So, he dumps most of his combat stats.
BUT, he still gets a turn in combat. He still rolls initiative, and he still comes up. In a typical skirmish with a few goblins, maybe he plinks them with magic missiles, and then is done, relying on the Fighter to hew them to bits. But in the big conflict with the dragon, the wizard can't afford to sit it out -- the Fighter won't be able to beat it on her own, so the wizard's plinking magic missiles become the little bit of extra edge the Fighter needs to push it over and win the encounter. And the wizard can look for certain exploits or useful edges he might be able to gain (use your magic missile to knock some stones loose from the wall and tumble it onto the dragon!).
So sitting out a major encounter isn't really an option (and sitting out a minor encounter might be an option, but it's over in a minute and the fighter doesn't need your help), if the game is designed with the assumption that there are enemies that a fighter won't be able to just handle by themselves.
Last edited:
Aenghus
Explorer
It's interesting that you give the example of magic missile, which in many of it's incarnations was auto-hit, which misses the point that I was focussing on the success chance issue.
I think that psychologically there is a real difference between
- 100% chance of low damage
- 50% chance of low damage
- 25% chance of low damage
and I don't think the default should stick any class at all at the 25% average success rate point.
Frankly I would prefer noone could even choose to be effectively incompetent at a pillar, and I see 25% as incompetent.
Interesting character generation involves real choices and real sacrifices. Making a dump of ability a foregone conclusion from a mechanics point of view isn't interesting, it's boring, and marginalises PCs who don't make the dump. All options provided by the system should be viable, and there should be real advantages and disadvantages to every choice involved.
Crazy Jerome
First Post
I see it very much as more bug than feature. This is because multiplied effects of weaknesses, applied over many levels, rapidly get out of control. At first level, the wizard having relatively lousy chance to hit with his dagger, for somewhat under half damage, is pretty stark but not out of line with his usual archetype. However, if this is allowed to degrade over levels to a really lousy chance for even a smaller faction of damage, you quickly get to the point where the wizard won't bother. In early D&D, this didn't matter, because the point at which this happened was the calm before the storm when the wizard was going to use nothing but spells most of the time anyway, and sit out those mop up fights where the fighter could handle it himself. (Or more likely, the wizard is going to use a magic missle wand or other minor item left over from earlier adventuring.)
Now, you can make valid cases for each of:
- Success percentages stay relatively constant (in regards to each other, not necessarily equal) while effect trails off.
- Success percentages trail off while effect remains relatively constant.
- Something else takes the place of falling success percentage and falling effect.
I'm A Banana
Potassium-Rich
Aenghus said:
I was taking a broader view than the individual attack rolls: the success of the combat itself. The chance of success for the wizard in a combat where the wizard employs magic missile and the enemy is a "generic" mid-hp, mid-damage monster, is very, very low. The wizard in this scenario has a much lower chance to succeed at the combat than a fighter would.
Aenghus said:
I don't disagree, but I think it's a little narrow to categorically write off the 25% chance of success. There are designs that can make that relevant.
Crazy Jerome said:
This would be my recommendation -- the wizard is always (barring certain character options) going to have a smaller chance to win in a straight combat than a fighter. The fighter (barring certain character options) is always going to have a smaller chance to persuade an NPC than a cleric. The cleric (barring certain character options) is always going to have a smaller chance to find traps than the thief. The thief (barring certain character options) is always going to have a smaller chance to win a fight than a fighter.
To relate it to 4e, it's the spread between having training in a skill that you also have a +5 ability bonus to and a relevant background for (+12 @ level one), and not having training in a skill that you stick your 8 in (-1 @ level one).
I think that's too big of a spread, personally, but 4e does still manage to sort of keep it viable. Reduce it down to the difference between, say, +2 and -2 or +4 and -4 at level 1 (and then raise all ships equally), and you've got more what I think might work well.
When I think of differences between the pillars and some classes being better than others in a pillar, I think more in terms of options and function.
For instance in Combat (probably the most common and biggest issue)...
Those classes that are considered the best at the "fighting" or "combat" pillar have abilities that directly effect Combat. Abilities such as high hp, good armor, lots of combat specific tricks and maneuvers, bonuses with weapons and dishing damage, etc.
Other classes that might be considered less skilled in the "combat" pillar, might not have high hp, high damage output, etc. However, they should be able to contribute to combat in a meaningful way that isn't "pure" combat. Abilities such as boosting morale, knowledge that could provide information on weaknesses in foes, ability to provide viable distractions to throw enemies off with feints, abilities that tire out a foe, etc.
These characters don't become useless in combat, they are just less "combatant-like" but still useful in combat scenarios.
For instance in Combat (probably the most common and biggest issue)...
Those classes that are considered the best at the "fighting" or "combat" pillar have abilities that directly effect Combat. Abilities such as high hp, good armor, lots of combat specific tricks and maneuvers, bonuses with weapons and dishing damage, etc.
Other classes that might be considered less skilled in the "combat" pillar, might not have high hp, high damage output, etc. However, they should be able to contribute to combat in a meaningful way that isn't "pure" combat. Abilities such as boosting morale, knowledge that could provide information on weaknesses in foes, ability to provide viable distractions to throw enemies off with feints, abilities that tire out a foe, etc.
These characters don't become useless in combat, they are just less "combatant-like" but still useful in combat scenarios.
Similar Threads
