Where's the Bard?

[ZombieRoboNinja]

My point is that this is both an unneccesary design goal, and general bad.

Look, it's what levels are for. You can parse it further if you need to - "A level-X defender should be able to adequately defend a party of equal level versus similarly-leveled opponents," or something - but what's the point of having discrete character levels if they don't correspond in some way?

It is "generally bad" to build every D&D class as a fully capable combatant because it takes a tool out of the toolbox. While I understand that some players scoff at the idea that it might be fun to play a character that hides under a table anytime a bar fight breaks out, we all have seen exactly this in other forms of entertainment and found it to be both entertaining and internally consistent with the character. in an RPG, that would translate to being fun to play. It so happens that D&D is a class based game (or, in the parlance of 4E, a role based game). As such, providing the tool that is a character that doesn't have superhuman combat ability means providing a class that allows this. Or, more to the point, it means *not* requiring that every character be a skilled combatant. because when you do that, you (as in, the designer) is defining fun for your users instead of giving them the tools to make their own fun.

If you want to play a "weak" character, make him lower level. Just as if you want to play an all-powerful wizard, or an omnitalented badass like Aragorn, you can make him higher level. But if two characters (of PC classes) are the same level, they should be close in power level.

If you want a system where wizards start out weak and end up uber-powered (a la earlier-edition D&D), you can give them an initial level penalty and more XP. If you want a "gritty" game where fighters have "down to earth" powers but spellcasters don't, cap melee classes at level 10. If you want to play Frodo Baggins Goes to Mordor, play as a low-level rogue (or commoner) surrounded by mid- to high-level enemies.

The reason this is important? Because otherwise, the system is just being flat-out deceptive, especially to new players. I should be able to open the PHB (and other official books) and pick any class I want and expect to be able to handle equal-level encounters and contribute when my party is in trouble. If I'm playing the guy who dives behind bars, that's a rather advanced roleplaying situation, and I should talk to the DM to either start at a lower level or maybe take up an NPC class (from the DMG, where it's explicitly stated that the class isn't up to snuff for PCs).

I imagine your concern is that you want to make a class that still has social skills and maybe some buffs and spells to help his party, but just sucks in a fight. That's easy too. Just take the BALANCED Bard class and give him a -4 to attacks and AC/defenses, and maybe give him a couple extra levels if you want to make him better at the non-combat stuff. It's a lot easier to unbalance a class (for RP purposes) than to balance one.

 

[Reynard]

If you want to play a "weak" character, make him lower level. Just as if you want to play an all-powerful wizard, or an omnitalented badass like Aragorn, you can make him higher level. But if two characters (of PC classes) are the same level, they should be close in power level.

Level doesn't solve the problem because effectiveness in areas outside combat are also tied to level.

 

[The Little Raven]

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

You said (and I quote) "an 18-minute fight." That ignores the other 3 18-minute fights, which adds up to 1 hour, 12 minutes out of 4 hours of game time. And that's on the LOW end. 1 hour, 12 minutes in which I'm only really capable of giving someone a +2 bonus on some check is totally freakin' lame.

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.

Then this game has suffered from bad design philosophy ever since Gygax and Arneson sat down to pen it, since D&D has always assumed a heavy amount of combat as indicated by the overwhelming amount of combat rules (and the severe lack of non-combat rules in almost every edition).

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.

No, it's not.

A fighter is better at soaking up damage than other classes, because of his design.
A rogue is better at dealing single-target melee damage than other classes, because of his design.

They are both able to have an equivalent impact on combat, but by filling entirely different functions.

Just like a bard and a fighter can have equivalent impact on a social situation, but in different respects (the fighter uses intimidation to get his point across, while the bard tricks the NPC into seeing things his way). Equivalent impact. Different function.

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

Level doesn't solve the problem because effectiveness in areas outside combat are also tied to level.

Keep reading.

I imagine your concern is that you want to make a class that still has social skills and maybe some buffs and spells to help his party, but just sucks in a fight. That's easy too. Just take the BALANCED Bard class and give him a -4 to attacks and AC/defenses, and maybe give him a couple extra levels if you want to make him better at the non-combat stuff. It's a lot easier to unbalance a class (for RP purposes) than to balance one.

Here, I'll make a feat for ya! ;-)

Bad Under Pressure
Prerequisites: Masochistic Roleplayer
Effect: You take a -4 penalty to defenses, AC, and all rolls made while in combat. However, you also get +2 to all skill checks, and an additional use of a daily power per day.

 

[apoptosis]

No offense Reynard, but why is it bad? I understand the idea that it's not necessary - you think it's fine for some players to "not be good at things" in the sense of not having anything to contribute for an encounter. I understand that point of view. What I don't understand is why it's "general bad". Isn't it better to balance things the way Mearls&Co are trying to do, if you can pull it off successfully? Wouldn't it be better to have a situation where in any situation, everyone can contribute something and be doing something useful, all in different ways?

I think it depends.

If you want D&D to be a more general Fantasy game, then yes it is a bad thing as it preassumes that combat is what is important and take choices away from players who dont want the game to be dominated by combat, or do not want all combats to basically follow the same paradigm.

I think this is where Reynard comes from.

I think where I disagree with Reynard is that D&D is really not the best choice for a general fantasy RPG (if such a thing exists, maybe Rolemaster).

For me I wouldnt play 4E (from what I know of it) unless I wanted to run a dungeoncrawl, but I think the game would be very well-suited to some of the old modules as it will allow the player to incorporate many rules and situations to mechanically deal with challenges that earlier editions somewhat handwaved away. It willl do a good job of simulating a high-end version of the heroic journey but for all classes (not just the spellcasters)

But D&D is really a game about overcoming challenges (far and away mostly combat challenges) and growing more powerful.

D&D was never really good (and 4E will be probably be worse) at being a generic Fantasy Toolbox (frankly i think the generic Fantasy Toolbox is a bad idea, it usually ends up doing everything mediocre)

I do understand where Reynard is coming from, I don't think that the end result of 4E will be what he is looking for in a game.

In some sense replicating earlier editions with minor tweaks (which it seems what Reynard wants) is somewhat pointless, as those games exist already.

But i definitely understand his frustration. I just dont think he will get the results he is looking for from 4E.

 

[Reynard]

You said (and I quote) "an 18-minute fight." That ignores the other 3 18-minute fights, which adds up to 1 hour, 12 minutes out of 4 hours of game time. And that's on the LOW end.

What i meant was each individual combat would range between 18 and 42 minutes.

1 hour, 12 minutes in which I'm only really capable of giving someone a +2 bonus on some check is totally freakin' lame.

I think you're stretching -- even if you don't consider any actions that provide more than a +2 from a mechanical perspective, there are issues of battlefield control and movenment and maneuvering to consider.

Then this game has suffered from bad design philosophy ever since Gygax and Arneson sat down to pen it, since D&D has always assumed a heavy amount of combat as indicated by the overwhelming amount of combat rules (and the severe lack of non-combat rules in almost every edition).

The ratio of rules has nothing to do with the ratio of play. More space is spent on those things that are more complex, not which take up more play time.

A fighter is better at soaking up damage than other classes, because of his design.
A rogue is better at dealing single-target melee damage than other classes, because of his design.

They are both able to have an equivalent impact on combat, but by filling entirely different functions.

Which, again, is unnecesary if you take the adventure as a whole as the basic unit of play.

Just like a bard and a fighter can have equivalent impact on a social situation, but in different respects (the fighter uses intimidation to get his point across, while the bard tricks the NPC into seeing things his way). Equivalent impact. Different function.

But, see, there's no reason why the fighter needs to have an equivalent impact on those kinds of situations. I think it is okay if that's an option for the fighter-player, of course, but if it is built in as an immutable function of the class, like combat abilities, it fails to supprt archetype based play.

 

[kennew142]

It is "generally bad" to build every D&D class as a fully capable combatant because it takes a tool out of the toolbox. While I understand that some players scoff at the idea that it might be fun to play a character that hides under a table anytime a bar fight breaks out, we all have seen exactly this in other forms of entertainment and found it to be both entertaining and internally consistent with the character. in an RPG, that would translate to being fun to play. It so happens that D&D is a class based game (or, in the parlance of 4E, a role based game). As such, providing the tool that is a character that doesn't have superhuman combat ability means providing a class that allows this. Or, more to the point, it means *not* requiring that every character be a skilled combatant. because when you do that, you (as in, the designer) is defining fun for your users instead of giving them the tools to make their own fun.

I can't disagree enough on this point. I understand that some players may find it fun to play a cowardly character who is ineffectual in a fight. I support that. But designing classes so that this is all you can do with them once the fight begins is just bad design. No character should be ineffectual in combat, just because it takes such a large chunk of real time at the gaming table.

The bard character doesn't have to be as good a combatant as the fighter in order to have interesting abilities to use in combat. Assuming that the bard will be an arcane leader, they should have inspirational type abilities similar to the cleric and warlord, but with different flavor. Even if the character's powers are more "tricky" than lethal, they can be effective. Imagine a power (gods! how I hate that term for combat maneuvers) that distracts an opponent, giving them a penalty to hit for a round, or allowing allies to make an opportunity attack, or dazing them for round, etc.... The bard doesn't have to deal large amounts of damage in order to contribute to combat in an interesting and creative way.

I'm hoping that we see this kind of powers for the bard. Combine it with good social skills and some illusion and/or enchantment powers and I would love to play one.

I love the concept of the bard. It is the mechanics in 3e that I don't like.

 

[Reynard]

I can't disagree enough on this point. I understand that some players may find it fun to play a cowardly character who is ineffectual in a fight. I support that. But designing classes so that this is all you can do with them once the fight begins is just bad design. No character should be ineffectual in combat, just because it takes such a large chunk of real time at the gaming table.

My point though is that it shouldn't have to, what with faster combat and built in XP "story awards" and all.

But I think you're right -- combat ate a lot of game time in 3E due to rules issues, and 4E will eat a lot of game time due to design intent. I'm not suggesting makinga class that sucks in the context of the design philosophy, I am suggesting a design philospophy that means the class doesn't suck.

 

[apoptosis]

But, see, there's no reason why the fighter needs to have an equivalent impact on those kinds of situations. I think it is okay if that's an option for the fighter-player, of course, but if it is built in as an immutable function of the class, like combat abilities, it fails to supprt archetype based play.

One thing that really has happened is that all classes have become fighters with slightly different special effects. This is probably for me where it emulates something like WoW the most.

This is a bit of an over exaggeration but is not far from accurate. That is why the class names probably mean less than they did. They are all fighters but with better or worse utility on defense, spread of attack and some special effects and defenses.

That just means it is a very focused design. It had to be designed this way to achieve some of their goals (the major one was similar effectiveness across the majority of combat situations).

 

[The Little Raven]

My point though is that it shouldn't have to, what with faster combat and built in XP "story awards" and all.

What you're saying is that it's okay to design classes to be poor combatants because you're building them to be strong in completely separate arenas (social as opposed to physical). We're saying that's not okay, because not everyone wants to play the sissy socialite that hides behind the bar, so designing a class to be like that is a bad idea. It's easier to make him combat-effective and let the "sissy socialite bar-hider" players ignore/not use those combat abilities than it is to make him combat-ineffective and force those "combat-effective" players to develop new game mechanics.

It's a difference of one group simply having to ignore some things, and another group having to engage in full-scale game design.

I'm not suggesting makinga class that sucks in the context of the design philosophy, I am suggesting a design philospophy that means the class doesn't suck.

You seem to be suggesting a design philosophy of "Not every character class has to be combat-effective," which would suggest he would, in fact, suck in combat.