What does "Good at X" mean?

[Minigiant]

When I was pondering the combat ability of the fighter, the cleric, the rogue, and the wizard; I came upon a question: What make the fighter a better fighter than the other classes?

Does he have bigger numbers?
Does his attacks and defense have more and better properties?
Does he have access to more or better tactical options?


Numbers:

Does the fighter have a higher attack bonus, damage bonus, armor class and hit point total than the cleric and rogue?
Do full casters have double the spell slots a partial caster?

The numbers option is how pre-4e handled it. The fighter had higher attack and a bigger HD. The wizard had more caster levels than a paladin. Simple and easy. As long as the designer do screw up the numbers with stacking bonuses and spells replacing balancing factors it works fine. Though that last sentence is often not so easy.

Properties:

Do the warrior classes hit approaching enemies with their spears and polearms whereas the nonwarriors only spear attack (or only attack well) on their turn?
Does the cleric's cure light wounds wounds heal HP damage and remove poisons unlike the bard, ranger, and cleric CLW only heal damage.

This is sorta the 4e method with 3e doing this a bit too. Better mean more stuff happens. This method breeds complexity and system mastery. Some like that. Some don't.

Versatility:

Can the Fighter switch between archer, defender, brawler, and skirmisher on the fly while the paladin is stuck as a melee smasher and the rogue as mobile striker?
Does the wizards have spells of all different types while sorcerer's are just blasters?

Tactical roles and strategic builds. The good have more than the bad. It is easier to match fluff this way but it does limit how a player or DM can build their characters.

What should characters that are good at something have over characters who aren't as skilled?

 

[JamesonCourage]

I voted all three, but "sometimes it's one, sometimes another" was kind of what I mean. That is, if someone has the same numbers, same properties, but more versatility, obviously he's better at it than the other guy.

However, if you're building someone in one area, I'd rather them get better at all three areas. That's means you're better numerically (higher chance to hit or defend compared to non-warriors or lesser warriors), you can tack more effects onto normal attacks (status effects, 4e's slide mechanic, etc.), and you're more versatile (being able to swap between weapon groups, being able to perform more maneuvers or spells, etc.).

Just my opinion. All three seem important. As always, play what you like

 

[Hassassin]

As a rule, I think you should get to choose any two of the three to improve.

 

[Herremann the Wise]

I think of those you listed (and from a probability standpoint) increases in "properties" or the rate in which actions can be accomplished trumps the other two, relatively speaking. The more actions my fighter can do compared to other combatants within a "round", the greater his or her impact upon combat and what happens in that round relative to others. I believe this is a somewhat unplumbed design feature of a character that martial/mundane classes can reasonably dominate in compared to their magical peers so as to bring the two more into line power-wise while still maintaining the intrinsic and magical differences between the two.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[Ahnehnois]

It really depends. For a really single-minded fighter or barbarian who just wants to smash things, it's pretty much about numbers. Maybe some better properties to his attacks if you want to get fancy (I don't). Some casters and rogues can be similarly one-dimensional. For most characters numbers are at least somewhat relevant.

Versatility is important only if the player really wants it to be. If a player wants to play a charismatic fighter who inspires his allies ("warlord"), versatility becomes important. For the god wizard or the archetypical CODzilla, versatility is important. For a really clever rogue, versatility is important.

In other words, character concepts are diverse, the rules should be able to cover them all.

 

[Minigiant]

It really depends. For a really single-minded fighter or barbarian who just wants to smash things, it's pretty much about numbers. Maybe some better properties to his attacks if you want to get fancy (I don't). Some casters and rogues can be similarly one-dimensional. For most characters numbers are at least somewhat relevant.

Versatility is important only if the player really wants it to be. If a player wants to play a charismatic fighter who inspires his allies ("warlord"), versatility becomes important. For the god wizard or the archetypical CODzilla, versatility is important. For a really clever rogue, versatility is important.

In other words, character concepts are diverse, the rules should be able to cover them all.

I think you are missing my point. I'm only talking about comparisons of one aspects of a character between classes.


Which of these do you prefer?

Numbers
Fighter:
Longsword +5 vs AC 1d8+10 damage
Wizard:
Staff +2 vs AC 1d4+1 damage

Property
Fighter:
Longsword +3 vs AC 1d8+2 damage Critical on 19 or higher. Trip on 15 or higher.
Wizard:
Staff +3 vs AC 1d8+2 damage

Versatility
Fighter:
Longsword +4 vs AC 1d8+4 damage.
Greataxe +2 vs AC 1d12+10 damage
Longbow +1 vs AC 1d8 damage Range 30ft
Glaive +2 vs AC 1d10+6 damage Range 10ft
Bola +1 vs Dexterity Target is tripped Range 10ft
Wizard:
Staff +4 vs AC 1d8+4 damage

 

[Ahnehnois]

I think you are missing my point. I'm only talking about comparisons of one aspects of a character between classes.

Maybe.

What makes the fighter a better fighter than the wizard? In principle, there is nothing a fighter can do that a wizard cannot (where the reverse is not true; a wizard can do many things that are absolutely impossible for a fighter to do. So fundamentally, I think it boils down to numbers. A fighter is more likely to hit and deal damage (and inflict crits), and more resilient in various ways. There may be mores subtle things; a fighter may be able to draw a weapon more quickly or inflict greater secondary effects. It's not really about versatility, however, because the notion of a martial "power source" is a false one. A wizard could convceivably do anything a fighter could do; there is no weapon a wizard could not pick up and use, no maneuver a wizard could not attempt, no attack so damaging that no wizard could endure it. The wizard is simply less likely to succed at things that are within the fighter's sphere of influence.

Numbers
Fighter:
Longsword +5 vs AC 1d8+10 damage
Wizard:
Staff +2 vs AC 1d4+1 damage

That makes sense

Property
Fighter:
Longsword +3 vs AC 1d8+2 damage Critical on 19 or higher. Trip on 15 or higher.
Wizard:
Staff +3 vs AC 1d8+2 damage

Well the wizard can crit and trip too, he's just less likely to do so, so we're still in the realm of numbers (threat range is a number).

Versatility
Fighter:
Longsword +4 vs AC 1d8+4 damage.
Greataxe +2 vs AC 1d12+10 damage
Longbow +1 vs AC 1d8 damage Range 30ft
Glaive +2 vs AC 1d10+6 damage Range 10ft
Bola +1 vs Dexterity Target is tripped Range 10ft
Wizard:
Staff +4 vs AC 1d8+4 damage

The wizard could pick up any of those weapons, though his attack bonus might be below 0.

Which of these do you prefer?

The first one is probably the best representation of what I think, and maybe the secind, though both undersell the fighter's capabilities a bit (he can get some really nice numbers, depending on what rules we're talking about). The third is a bit less on point for me, though I do expect fighters to be proficient (i.e. have good numbers with) more weapons.

 

[Noumenon]

Which of these do you prefer?

Numbers
Fighter:
Longsword +5 vs AC 1d8+10 damage
Wizard:
Staff +2 vs AC 1d4+1 damage

Property
Fighter:
Longsword +3 vs AC 1d8+2 damage Critical on 19 or higher. Trip on 15 or higher.
Wizard:
Staff +3 vs AC 1d8+2 damage

Versatility
Fighter:
Longsword +4 vs AC 1d8+4 damage.
Greataxe +2 vs AC 1d12+10 damage
Longbow +1 vs AC 1d8 damage Range 30ft
Glaive +2 vs AC 1d10+6 damage Range 10ft
Bola +1 vs Dexterity Target is tripped Range 10ft
Wizard:
Staff +4 vs AC 1d8+4 damage

Thanks for the example, that makes it a lot clearer. Before I didn't know, now I'm definitively coming down for "properties." I don't want to be able to fireball and lightning bolt and shout with equal effect, I don't want my spells to be 30% harder to save against. I want to be "the color guy" who uses rainbow patterns, I want to be the sorcerer who deals damage with claws, I want to be the guy with a horse that jumps over things, I want to be the guy who disarms you and gets to use your weapon. I'll let you have higher saves, twice the damage, a flying mount. All I want is that my character's attacks have some property normal characters don't.

 

[Minigiant]

Maybe.

What makes the fighter a better fighter than the wizard? In principle, there is nothing a fighter can do that a wizard cannot (where the reverse is not true; a wizard can do many things that are absolutely impossible for a fighter to do. So fundamentally, I think it boils down to numbers. A fighter is more likely to hit and deal damage (and inflict crits), and more resilient in various ways. There may be mores subtle things; a fighter may be able to draw a weapon more quickly or inflict greater secondary effects. It's not really about versatility, however, because the notion of a martial "power source" is a false one. A wizard could convceivably do anything a fighter could do; there is no weapon a wizard could not pick up and use, no maneuver a wizard could not attempt, no attack so damaging that no wizard could endure it. The wizard is simply less likely to succed at things that are within the fighter's sphere of influence.

The bolder part is, for these argument, a property.

That makes sense

Of course. That's tradition.

Well the wizard can crit and trip too, he's just less likely to do so, so we're still in the realm of numbers (threat range is a number).

Well. Not really. Yes the wizard can critical but only on a 20. The real property is the Trip. In a property system, the wizard can't Trip unless the DM allows it. The DM could say the target is too good of a warrior to be tripped by the fighter but would be unable to do so for the fighter's attack (unless he or she wants a mad player).

Maybe spells would be a better description

Wizard:
Fireball: 5d6 fire damage. Dex save for half damage. Target catches fire (wizard only). Half damage to fire immune targets (wizard only).

Bard:
Fireball 5d6 fire damage. Dex save for half damage.

The wizard could pick up any of those weapons, though his attack bonus might be below 0.

Again, for this aguement, nonproficient mean unable to use.

Wizard
Fireball
Slow
Suggestion
Major Image

Sorceror
Fireball only

The first one is probably the best representation of what I think, and maybe the secind, though both undersell the fighter's capabilities a bit (he can get some really nice numbers, depending on what rules we're talking about). The third is a bit less on point for me, though I do expect fighters to be proficient (i.e. have good numbers with) more weapons.

It seems you are Numbers/Properties.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Being "good" at something is as much about avoiding weaknesses as maximizing strengths. If you've got a +27 with longsword, always hit for exactly 1d8+2 with no other properties, only a +2 with any other weapon, then you are suddenly good with the longsword in your hand, but not "good at weapons". Your lack of options and versatility sucks so much that it dominates the picture.

Contrawise, the more you shore up those options and versatility, the more nifty that +27 is going to feel. (Or with that much disparity, "overpowered". But that's another subject.)

You can get the same effect with being able to use every weapon and not do much with them, or having a ton of options with your longsword that all whiff because you can't hit worth a darn.

This is because of diminishing returns--and is as much subjective as anything else. Once you've got enough numbers to hit often enough, and do enough damage at the base, any increase in those is nowhere near as valuable as having more options with your main weapon and versatility with other weapons/modes. And vice versa. When all three hit the minimum threshold for "good enough", improvements in all three will gradually get you to "good", even if somewhat erratic or uneven improvements.