Where's the Bard?

[Grog]

It's not 10 minutes, though. I'd wager that for most groups -- it's certainly true for mine -- combat takes up at least half the actual real time spent at the table. It's hours. Combat effectiveness has to be the holy grail for designers, because it's where the vast majority of the rules actually apply, and where a huge chunk of the game table action takes place.

QFT.

I've seen people say, essentially, "It's okay if the fighter dominates the scene in combat, because the rogue will get his moment to shine when he disarms the trap later, and the wizard will get his moment when he deciphers the ancient runes on the doors to the great hall."

The problem with this view is that combat is, by far, the most time-consuming thing in the game. So when the fighter gets to shine in combat, he gets to shine through multiple rounds and probably hours of playing time. By contrast, when the rogue disarms the trap, his moment in the sun lasts for one roll of the d20 - probably 30 seconds, if we're being generous. Same for the wizard when he makes his Knowledge check to decipher the runes. So the fighter's time in the spotlight lasts many many times longer than the other classes' (under the above theory).

Now, combat is supposed to be faster in 4E, so things might be different. But as things stand in 3E, if your character sucks in combat, you're going to be basically sidelined for at least half the time (probably more), unless you're playing a very atypical campaign.

 

[Reynard]

And this still completely ignores the statement you quoted, which is that you can easily ignore the combat-effective capabilities of the character without changing a single thing, while I would have to rebuild the class to be effective, thus requiring me to do game design to get something so basic and simple as a combat effective character.

No, you can't. Or, at least, you can't have a character that is as good at something else as the other character is at combat, because the idea is the classes would be balanced in the context of an overall adventure. In other words, just because I play my bard as a coward doesn't mean I suddenly sprout an array of non-combat related abilities to compensate for my lack of combat abilities, because the character does not in fact lack those abilities. If one was designing for the whole of the adventure, divvying up the roles into "important things PCs do on adventures" instead of "important things PCs do on the battlefield", you could build a class like that and it would be balanced against the more combat capable class.

 

[The Little Raven]

No, you can't. Or, at least, you can't have a character that is as good at something else as the other character is at combat, because the idea is the classes would be balanced in the context of an overall adventure. In other words, just because I play my bard as a coward doesn't mean I suddenly sprout an array of non-combat related abilities to compensate for my lack of combat abilities, because the character does not in fact lack those abilities. If one was designing for the whole of the adventure, divvying up the roles into "important things PCs do on adventures" instead of "important things PCs do on the battlefield", you could build a class like that and it would be balanced against the more combat capable class.

Except you keep ignoring two key points that punch massive holes in this.

1. Combat takes up way more time than you suggest. The only time I've seen you state is "10 minutes," and it's readily apparent from the comments of others that this is far from the case, being that most single combat encounters can last upwards of an hour.

2. Combat and non-combat abilities are silo'd independently, so your "make one character excel at non-combat and another excel at combat" argument is moot.

 

[Reynard]

Now, combat is supposed to be faster in 4E, so things might be different.

Exactly. We are talking about how to build a 4E bard, not why 3E combat can take days (and it can; it doesn't always, but it can). As I said in my original proposition of the idea, if 4E combats are faster, that leaves more table time for other stuff, which means that "other stuff" becomes a viable thing to design a class around, because, over the course of the adventure, everyone's impact should even out. (Or, rather than "should", I mean that had the design intent gone a different way, it would have been just as much work and no more as making sure everyone was balanced on the encounter scale.)

As to the twiddling of thumbs: am I the only person that as a player actually doesn't mind sitting back and watching another player do his thing? i mean sure, i role-play in the scene or do what I can to support that character in combat if that's the situation, but it isn't necessary to be in the spotlight, or even share the spotlight, if the overall experience with everyone at the table is a cool, fun, engaging and/or dramatic one.

 

[Reynard]

1. Combat takes up way more time than you suggest. The only time I've seen you state is "10 minutes," and it's readily apparent from the comments of others that this is far from the case, being that most single combat encounters can last upwards of an hour.

The amount of time any given group spends in combat varies wildly. There is no "standard".

2. Combat and non-combat abilities are silo'd independently, so your "make one character excel at non-combat and another excel at combat" argument is moot.

I am going to show my ignorance and ask what the term "silo'd" means.

 

[The Little Raven]

The amount of time any given group spends in combat varies wildly. There is no "standard".

It's grouped around the center, being roughly between 30-70% of the game. That's way more than 10 minutes in any game.

I am going to show my ignorance and ask what the term "silo'd" means.

Separated according to utility, so that you don't have to sacrifice one for the other. It's why wizards still have things like phantom steed, but they don't have to sacrifice combat utility to get it, since they're separate categories of power.

 

[Reynard]

It's grouped around the center, being roughly between 30-70% of the game. That's way more than 10 minutes in any game.

If there's 4 fights in a four hour session of 3E, then the 30% is an 18 minute fight and 70% is a 42 minute fight in the edition decried as having combats that last entirely too long. 10 minutes shouldn't be too tough to get to in a sleeker, faster combat system.

Separated according to utility, so that you don't have to sacrifice one for the other. It's why wizards still have things like phantom steed, but they don't have to sacrifice combat utility to get it, since they're separate categories of power.

Thanks for the definition. Isn't this a necessity based on the design philosophy, though? IOW, if the designers think badass combats where everyone is doing crazy cool stuff on their turn, regardless of their class, then in order to differentiate the classes they *have to* design them seperately because they have already committed to a playstyle in which everyone is highly combat capable? And doesn't it then demand, in order to maintain overall balance, that all the characters also have the same level of out of combat utility -- not just in *a* situation, but in *any given* type of situation (trap or social or political or exploratory or whatever).

 

[tombowings]

Combat takes up way more time than you suggest. The only time I've seen you state is "10 minutes," and it's readily apparent from the comments of others that this is far from the case, being that most single combat encounters can last upwards of an hour.

True, combat takes much of the session is most games. However, this isn't true for every campaign. I would agree that I have a very non-standard group, and we have 10-20% of each session devoted to combat. Everything else usually comes under the heading of "Roleplaying."

However, "Roleplaying" is a broad heading at ours, and, I would presume, many other's game tables. You have conversations between PC, conversations between NPC (bartering, gathering information, general tavern scenes, ect.), Multi-step traps (yes, traps can be interesting to not only the rogue), surviving environmental extremes, scouting, deciphering runes, puzzles, and moral debates (whether it is OK to slay the orc children because of what their parents have done to the nearby village). There are many more I could lost, but I'll save us all some time.

What I'm trying to say is that, not everything is about combat, and it would be nice to have a character that is a "specialist" is a noncombat situation. This doesn't mean they can't have something meaningful or interesting to contribute to battles, but it does mean that they are more gifted in fields other than combat.

The ideal system would be that there were combat and noncombat powers and players would be given the choice over what their character could specialize in. Unlike other posts, though, I think this will be an option given to players through feats. As was said by one of the designers (I don't have the exact quote, sorry) that you can build your fighter to be socially adept using feats, but the your fighter will never have the combat prowess that a fighter built only for the battlefield will have.

This, I feel, is the right descision.

 

[The Little Raven]

If there's 4 fights in a four hour session of 3E, then the 30% is an 18 minute fight and 70% is a 42 minute fight in the edition decried as having combats that last entirely too long. 10 minutes shouldn't be too tough to get to in a sleeker, faster combat system.

If 30% of play-time is taken up by combat, then a 4-hour (240 minutes) session would result in 72 minutes of combat (1 hour, 12 minutes). 70% would result in 168 minutes of combat.

Your math is seriously skewed, because 18 minutes is 30% of 60 minutes (1 hour), not 240 minutes (4 hours).

Isn't this a necessity based on the design philosophy, though?

It's based on feedback from players. Combat is a huge part of the game. Having classes explicitly designed to be crappy at combat is a bad design philosophy.

And doesn't it then demand, in order to maintain overall balance, that all the characters also have the same level of out of combat utility -- not just in *a* situation, but in *any given* type of situation (trap or social or political or exploratory or whatever).

No. You seem to think that "having something interesting and role-related to always be engaged in" means "you have the same exact utility in all situations as all characters." A bard doesn't have to be going toe-to-toe like a fighter, or be flanking and stabbing away like a rogue in order to be a combat-effective character. He just needs an equal amount of options within his role.

 

[Reynard]

If 30% of play-time is taken up by combat, then a 4-hour (240 minutes) session would result in 72 minutes of combat (1 hour, 12 minutes). 70% would result in 168 minutes of combat.

Your math is seriously skewed, because 18 minutes is 30% of 60 minutes (1 hour), not 240 minutes (4 hours).

Um, no. 4*18=72. My math is fine.

It's based on feedback from players. Combat is a huge part of the game. Having classes explicitly designed to be crappy at combat is a bad design philosophy.

Combat is *a* part of the game. How "huge" a part depends entirely on the group. Bad design philosophy is deciding that there is one appropriate playstyle and building the entire game around it.

No. You seem to think that "having something interesting and role-related to always be engaged in" means "you have the same exact utility in all situations as all characters." A bard doesn't have to be going toe-to-toe like a fighter, or be flanking and stabbing away like a rogue in order to be a combat-effective character. He just needs an equal amount of options within his role.

"Equivalent". Not "the same". In other words -- and I know I am repeating myself here -- if players aren't supposed to ever have to sit on their hands during encounters, and you have different kinds of encounters, then everyone has to have equivalent impact on each encounter, which runs counter to the archetype model where characters of a certain type are better at certain things than other characters.