Why do all classes have to be balanced?

[JamesonCourage]

Saying that a 1HD character can contribute meaningfully to combat by using Aid Another is somewhat...disingenuous. Okay, you've applied a whopping p) +5 bonus to an attack roll or damage roll. That's very, ahem, well, you've contributed in some way that wasn't totally laughable.

Now it's time for the bad guys to act. What's your AC? 15? 20? Even the most min-maxed builds are going to top the scales at around 25 at first level (unless you're wielding a bunch of magical equipment). At which point, you're going to get hit by a stray arrow or spell or sword and die instantly. Best case scenario, the bad guy rolls low and you survive two rounds rather than one.

Not really contributing meaningfully, as I see it.

I addressed this:

If that hit die 1 gave someone +2 to attacks with magic, then +3 with Leadership, then aided him for another +2 (with a -1 penalty on the bad guy now), then helped him flank for +1, it'd be a net swing of 9 (+8 good guy, -1 bad guy). When your passive attack bonus at hit die 15 is +15, that 9 swing is significant. To me, at least.

In the situation Hussar asked me about, that hit die 1 would be next to the bodyguard, giving him the bonus (which I mentioned for a reason). He'd step into the hit die 1's square and shield the hit die 1. The same goes for targeted Reflex spells aimed at him. And that's if the magician's magic item doesn't counterspell it (it gets one shot for free once per round) or he doesn't reactively throw up a protective ward on the guy (which he can overchannel, which is essentially casting for free).

So, no, I don't think I was being disingenuous. As always, play what you like

And we're right back where we were with the "Falling Damage" thread. You want a flatter game where high level characters are still essentially just better than low level characters. Your idea of a high level character can take on ten soldiers and win.

Funny how that happens. But, again, my system can handle what you want as well.

My idea of a high level character is one that can take on ten thousand soldiers and win. Ok, that's hyperbole. But certainly a heck of a lot more than ten. I want high level characters that are truly mythic. A fifteenth level party facing a largely mundane castle guarded by low level soldiers blows open the front door, rips the heads off of anything that stands in their way and kicks the dog on the way out.

Because, to me, a high level party is challenging gods. Or, if not gods, then certainly powerful unique beings that are close enough to gods to see divinity on a clear day. It's Queen of the Demonweb Pits, it's Isle of the Ape (where in the first encounter, you're intended to wade through a couple of hundred axe wielding 1e Barbarians), it's the last three or four modules of any Paizo (3e D&D anyway) Adventure Path.

This depends on how you model gods. But, again, I was talking game theory, not method. You're stuck on my method, and I explicitly said that you didn't need to use my methods:

It relates to game theory and what's in store for 5e. People claiming "a level 1 cannot meaningfully contribute to a level 15" are mistaken, in my mind. They can contribute, and it doesn't even need to be how I handled things (by toning down power, more or less; though to be fair, there was that PC in my game recently who was capable of wrestling dragons...).

That is, you can make a game where a level 1 character can make checks even on a gonzo scale (closer to 4e's default tiers) from level 1, allowing them to drive the story forward, especially if the math if flatter (as they've said they intend 5e to be) and the gap between a skill roll at level 1 and level 15 isn't vast.

I explicitly mentioned that you don't need to follow my methods in order to make a level 1 be able to meaningfully contribute to a level 15 party. I was just saying that it's possible, and that it maybe it should be something 5e could accomplish. I am not advocating toning down power level of 5e (though I think make for an easier to balance system).

And, like we went through the last time with this, if you flatten the math to the point where it resembles your game, I'm left out in the cold. It takes a massive rewrite of D&D to get to the point of what you have. To the point where I'd pretty much say that whatever you're playing, it's not D&D (classless would be the first clue). It might be level based, but, just barely. It's closer to something like E6, where levels really don't matter a whole lot and the game is predicated on a campaign not radically changing from beginning to end.

Well, my flattened math is probably a lot less flat than 5e seems to be aimed towards, but we'll see, since they admittedly haven't spoken much about it yet. Flattened math doesn't have to leave you out in the cold at all, because you can have tremendously flat math and still have epic progression. It'd be harder to work, but it'd be workable. You'd just need to show what you're capable of at different levels (you can't be hurt by creatures 2 levels less than you unless they roll a natural 20, and the like), but again, that's just game theory.

(Besides, it's trivially easy to make hit die 15s immensely more survivable than hit die 5s: no more progressive penalties for being attacked more than once in a round. So, 100 arrows before would likely pincushion you, but now they just miss you, or you deflect them, or dodge them, or whatever. It's about as easy as adjusting the rate at which you recover healing surges, and would be exceptionally easy to include as an optional rule. But, this is a sidetrack, and really tangential to my point.)

Another side note: as I said, what you're describing, about going to other planes to fight gods and the like, can be addressed, as I did in my last post to you:

(As a side note, I think you're also talking about what threats you go up against. Sure, you can take on 10 guys now, but they're still mundane soldiers, right? Yes, that's true. Well, you can also create creatures in a way that pretty much negate lower level creatures, if they're built to do so. Add high damage reduction, spell resistance, and the like, and boom! Balor, dragon, or some other monster than low hit die creatures can't deal with, but high hit die creatures can. If you want to move to new realms as you level up, then introduce magic items like "gate stones" or something to allow that movement, and have the party encounter bigger threats. You're describing a style of play that has more to do with preference than mechanics in my game, since it can cater to mundane threats or "big threats only powerful creatures can deal with" at higher level. As far as other mechanical differences, see above.)

So, again, if you want to have big threats that only high level creatures can deal with, go for it. It's simply a play style issue, and it's entirely achievable in my system (which means other systems, with other means, could undoubtedly achieve that goal, too).

I've seen such a creature in action in my RPG: the two-headed dragon that needed a specific poison to bypass its defenses. It passively healed some 36 damage per round, had 34 damage reduction, and had a spell resistance of 37. And that's when the two highest damage dealers passively dealt 1d10+21 and 3d10+22 damage. Just remove that weakness to poison, and it's impervious to damage and spells of low or even mid-level creatures. Put it on another "plane", start plane-hopping, and there you go. Heck, call it a demon lord.

But, rolling this back around to the OP and why do classes have to be balanced. I think this nicely encapsulates it. If you flatten the math to the point where 1st and 15th level are not significantly different, then you've balanced it one way - the campaign will not radically change through the entire campaign. OTOH, if you go the more traditional D&D route where play does radically change from one end of the scale to the other, then you have to make sure that balance is achieved at all points or it doesn't work.

This is a matter of play style, and a single game can be designed in such a way that it supports a similar style of play (fighting 10 guys instead of 1) or radically different (plane-hopping while fighting demon lords). It's not reliant on level 1 characters contributing to level 15s.

However, I do think balance is important. I think it'll be tricky with their three pillar approach, so we'll see what happens. But yes, balance is very, very important, to me. As always, play what you like

I GMed a 4e session yesterday for a party of 5 15th level PCs. [SNIP]

Anyway, to cut a long story short, at one stage the dwarven fighter was engaging two hobgoblin phalanxes (ie approx 80 skilled hobgoblin soldiers) on his own. [SNIP]

I think this is closer to the sort of thing that Hussar has in mind as typical of 15th level D&D.

Perhaps, and I'm okay with that. Like I said, it's pretty easy to get this to be the case with a variety of rules, even with flatter math. Math is a simple way to differentiate "tiers" of play since it does so naturally, by forcing a slow transition on the players.

Personally, I like a little more control over it, so that my one system can address whatever I need at the time. Am I playing a more gritty-style game? I'll use the optional rule where I take progressive penalties for more than one attack in a round (I'll assume that the more gonzo-leaning rule of no penalties is the default). If 5e is capable of giving that style of control, then I can have a game that allows for mundane soldiers to best me (Game of Thrones style), or something more highly fantastic (Wheel of Time, perhaps?).

But, I still hold that flatter math is one necessary component of that style of game. That, and control over how your character's resources are placed. This means potentially no gaining HP every level for people who want to trade it for something else, because part of their concept is being frail. Or, perhaps no bonus to attack (mandatory base attack bonus or +½ level) for those people who don't want to be good at attacking.

Will we see the flatter math? Maybe. Will we see that much control over your character's resources? Almost certainly not, since it's class-based. But, we'll see. There may be some sort of "fair swap" system. I do highly doubt it, but you never know.

I will also add - count me in as one of those who doesn't regard "aid another" as signficant contribution.

My player who had the hit die 14 support character (bonuses via skill checks, aid another, magical aura, etc.) told me to tell Hussar something on this front. Let's just say that he... vehemently disagrees with your assessment (he told me to communicate that as politely as necessary for the boards). To diminish his contribution to the party is something that deeply irritates him, especially when it was so tangible in play.

Additionally, if you look at my reply to B.T. in this post, as well as my reply to others in this thread, you can see just how meaningful that contribution is (especially considering the requote to B.T. was with a hit die 1, and his hit die 14 was remarkably more effective).

And no iteration of D&D has had a skill system robust enough in its action resolution mechanics to make a 1st level "skill guy" meaningful (by my standards) in what they contribute via their sage-iness, scouting etc. (Contrast eg Burning Wheel, which has a standard "linked test" mechanic for making those earlier skill checks matter significantly to the resolution of combat.)

As I've been saying in a few thread recently, I'll eat my hat if D&Dnext changes this significantly, given that it would require increasing the sophistication of skill-challenge style mechanics, rather than dropping them as has been suggested to be likely.

Sigh. I'll go back to the same quote from myself again:

I do know that -as I told pemerton- from a game theory perspective, level 1's consistently meaningfully contributing can be true for a level-based system, even with escalating level-dependent skills. Was it historically true in D&D? Probably not as much. Does that need to hold true for 5e? Definitely not. And thus my point.

Has D&D done this? Not to a satisfying degree, I'll agree. Does that mean it needs to be the case in 5e? No, and that's my point. I'm talking about the future of 5e; I have little interest in bickering about the past editions.

If you disagree with me that it might happen in 5e, then sure, that's the first sign of progression in the discussion on my point so far. I stepped in to say "it doesn't need to be that way" and got called by four or five people on it. Well, I stick to "it doesn't need to be that way." If you think "it probably will be that way" then that's a much more on-point reply than the four or five "but it's always been that way!" that I've gotten.

Again, I'd much rather talk about the direction of 5e, and how it might achieve those goals, than how past editions have failed and thus the new edition stands no chance. Because, it doesn't need to be that way. As always, play what you like

 

[pemerton]

My player who had the hit die 14 support character (bonuses via skill checks, aid another, magical aura, etc.) told me to tell Hussar something on this front. Let's just say that he... vehemently disagrees with your assessment (he told me to communicate that as politely as necessary for the boards). To diminish his contribution to the party is something that deeply irritates him, especially when it was so tangible in play.

There's nothing wrong with that. Different players have different criteria for meaningfulness.

But I think you also have to consider the context of this discussion. It concerend a 1st level PC, not a 14th level one. And if the buffs (via aid another or whatever other route) that a 1st level PC is bestowing are as strong as the buffs that a 14th or 15th level PC is bestowing, we are once again talking about a game very different from D&D.

Of the games that I'm familiar with, the one that makes helping others most meaningful is Burning Wheel. But it has sophisticated helping mechancis that tie in, in a variety of ways, to the advancement mechancis (for both helper and helped) and to the action resolution mechanics (most action resolution is conflict rather than task-focused, and the helping colours the scene and hence the resolution).

Has D&D done this? Not to a satisfying degree, I'll agree. Does that mean it needs to be the case in 5e? No, and that's my point. I'm talking about the future of 5e; I have little interest in bickering about the past editions.

If you disagree with me that it might happen in 5e, then sure, that's the first sign of progression in the discussion on my point so far.

I'm reading threads around here that say things like "instead of fighting the guards at the door, the rogue might poison their lunch". In my view, there is a near enough to zero likelihood that, in the D&Dnext era, we will see parties with rogues waiting for the rogue to poison the lunches of the guards before trying to go through the door. The rogue will help contribute stealth to the attack, but (in my view) that is as far as it will go.

And there is a reason for this. To make poisoning the lunch as viable as just bumping them off in an ambush, you need an action resolution system that makes both approaches equally viable, in terms of (i) time at the table, (ii) simplicity of resolution, (iii) grippingness of resolution, (iv) likelihood of success relative to a default amount of effort in character building and action declaration, and (v) maybe some other things I can't think of at the moment.

D&D has never had this. And I seriously doubt that D&Dnext will. Because one fairly clear feature of D&Dnext will be it's difference from significant metagame-y aspects of 4e. And you can't tick my boxes (i) to (iv) without having a metagame aspect to your action resolution (I think it has to be scene-based, to start with).

D&Dnext could be many things. But I doubt that it will be radically different from D&D traditions when it comes to expectations about how scenes are framed and resolved.

I stepped in to say "it doesn't need to be that way" and got called by four or five people on it. Well, I stick to "it doesn't need to be that way."

I can build 1st level HARP or RM PCs who can make a meaningful contribution in partnership with a 15th level HARP or RM wizard. The wizard will have pox defences, limited hit points, and little ability to cast spells while being attacked. The 1st level PC, with maximum melee skills and heavy armour wearing skill, can play a vital defensive role (some call it the "meatshield"). And when the pair are waylaid by 5 ruffians in an alleway, the 1st level PC might even do a better job of things than the wizard, if the wizard is not a multi-target combat specialist but (say) a diviner and single-target enchanter. And against an AoE attack, the 1st level PC might be just as robust (I've GMed high level RM wizards with less resilience to physical damage than 1st level RM warriors).

I don't think anyone is saying that these sorts of PC builds, and scenarios, are impossible a priori. They're saying that they are not a singificant part of D&D. And are very unlikely to be on the radar for D&Dnext.

The flatter maths seems to be focused primarily on action resolution bonuses (including attack bonuses) and DCs (including defence bonuses). I doubt that it will affect hit points (otherwise D&D won't support it's traditional gonzo play). I doubt tht it will affect damage (otherwise orcs won't turn into de facto minions against higher level PCs). I would expect a 1st level PC in D&Dnext to be unlikely to survive more than a round or two mixing it up with 15th levels, because (like the orcs) s/he will be a minion who gest squashed in one hit.

 

[JamesonCourage]

There's nothing wrong with that. Different players have different criteria for meaningfulness.

But I think you also have to consider the context of this discussion. It concerend a 1st level PC, not a 14th level one. And if the buffs (via aid another or whatever other route) that a 1st level PC is bestowing are as strong as the buffs that a 14th or 15th level PC is bestowing, we are once again talking about a game very different from D&D.

But they aren't as strong. I went into this with my reply to Hussar about depth. A combat-aid focused hit die 1 PC can give a +9 swing in combat to a hit die 15 combat-focused PC who only gets +15 passively, giving him a sizable bonus to his attack roll.

The hit die 14 PC, however, was giving higher bonuses, more often, and to more people. He wouldn't affect one person, plus one person reactively; no, he'd give out four bonuses, plus two reactively (or three times as many bonuses). He also had a passive magical aura to give to allies, rather than having to spend time buffing mid-combat. His total bonuses were also higher than the hit die 1. His skills were more capable (he could lead men well, had his own ship with a crew, and was a very good negotiator, which is something the hit die 1 would be respectable at, but not amazing at yet).

Hit die denotes depth of ability. To say that a hit die 1's buff is as strong as a hit die 15's buff is to misunderstand my system (or even the point of hit die in my system) on a rather fundamental level.

D&Dnext could be many things. But I doubt that it will be radically different from D&D traditions when it comes to expectations about how scenes are framed and resolved.

Well, that could very well be true. It'll be interesting, since they just released an article about Wizards, and mentioned making sure he doesn't overpower the party and steal too much spotlight or step on too many toes. And, with the mention of the Fighter surpassing our version of "mundane" and hitting something closer to "mythic mundane" or the like, it'll be interesting to see what action resolution mechanics they'll employ. It seems like they won't heavily employ metagame action resolution mechanics, and instead rely on "it makes sense, it's mythic" at high levels.

For lower levels, though? No idea. And poisoning guards should definitely be viable at lower levels, I'd imagine. They could definitely make an extended skill resolution system. I like them. I have nothing against skill challenges, as long as they "make sense" to me. That is, you dump what Justin Alexander says about them, dump "these skills work, these skills don't, these skills have this result", and just resolve checks like skills, I think they're fine. I even like the X successes before 3 failures rule.

I can build 1st level HARP or RM PCs who can make a meaningful contribution in partnership with a 15th level HARP or RM wizard. The wizard will have pox defences, limited hit points, and little ability to cast spells while being attacked. The 1st level PC, with maximum melee skills and heavy armour wearing skill, can play a vital defensive role (some call it the "meatshield"). And when the pair are waylaid by 5 ruffians in an alleway, the 1st level PC might even do a better job of things than the wizard, if the wizard is not a multi-target combat specialist but (say) a diviner and single-target enchanter. And against an AoE attack, the 1st level PC might be just as robust (I've GMed high level RM wizards with less resilience to physical damage than 1st level RM warriors).

I don't think anyone is saying that these sorts of PC builds, and scenarios, are impossible a priori. They're saying that they are not a singificant part of D&D. And are very unlikely to be on the radar for D&Dnext.

I doubt it's an explicit design goal. I think the flatter math will make this an issue, though, whether they intend it to or not.

The flatter maths seems to be focused primarily on action resolution bonuses (including attack bonuses) and DCs (including defence bonuses). I doubt that it will affect hit points (otherwise D&D won't support it's traditional gonzo play). I doubt tht it will affect damage (otherwise orcs won't turn into de facto minions against higher level PCs). I would expect a 1st level PC in D&Dnext to be unlikely to survive more than a round or two mixing it up with 15th levels, because (like the orcs) s/he will be a minion who gest squashed in one hit.

Right, but if you're correct, then the orc has a decent chance of hitting that level 15's AC (since it didn't scale as high). This means that a bunch of orcs, rolling individual attacks against the AC of the level 15, will likely land a decent number of hits. Even with HP continuing to go up significantly, the level 15 will eventually be dropped by enough mundane, regular orc warriors.

This is what I mean by the flatter math contributing to this type of thing. This is what Hussar seems to have explicitly said he doesn't want. In 3.X (and I believe 4e), if your AC is 25, and the orc only gets +5 to attack, he can only hit you on a natural 20. You feel pretty safe wading into them and cleaving through groups while they occasionally knock a few hit points off. On the other hand, if they all get +3, and your AC at level 15 is only AC 20, you're getting hit enough that you might worry about wading in.

The flatter math (attack bonus and AC) but not flatter HP means that mundane orcs, in a group, are still dangerous. Many people like this. Just as many (if not more) dislike this. I'm the former, and I think Hussar is the latter. But flatter math will make a difference in such a way that a level 1 might just be able to contribute. If the DC to do something is DC 16 at level 1 or level 15, and I get +6 at level 1 and +9 at level 15, I can contribute pretty well on that check.

Yes, the flatter math is affecting action resolution (including attack bonuses, AC, DCs, etc.), and that will certainly affect how the game is played. And, even if it's not an explicit design goal, it might allow a level 1 to contribute to a level 15. What is that worth? I don't know. It's not like most groups run that style of game anyways. But, it's something to keep in mind for how 5e mind turn out, even if it's not a design goal (since people like me will like it, and I think people like Hussar will dislike it). As always, play what you like

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

For lower levels, though? No idea. And poisoning guards should definitely be viable at lower levels, I'd imagine.

They certainly could do that. However, the point he appeared to be making is that in a group filled with a guy who calls himself a "Fighter" whose abilities revolve around stabbing sharp things through enemies in the same group as a Rogue who really wants to poison the guards dinner....you'll find that most groups don't find the poisoning method to be as interesting or as tension building.

A lot of the thrill of D&D is the tension you get from combat: "Will I die this round? I don't know, hopefully he rolls low! Darn...he hit me, but I still have 3 hp left. Will the cleric heal me before I get hit again? Let's find out!"

That sort of tension is lacking from a "Can the Rogue make a Stealth check? Yes? Perfect, now we wait here for the next 30 minutes while they eat dinner" situation.

That it's likely that most groups will choose the method of defeating the guards that involves the entire group at once, involves more of the abilities on their characters sheet(people like to use cool abilities), and is more "glorious".

Although, its possible for a low level Rogue to sneak in and poison the guards meals and therefore have "contributed"....it's much more likely that the rest of the group says "We COULD have you sneak in and poison them...but let's just attack them instead."

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

The game was never intended for balance, it was intended, and succeeded, at being fun.

It really depends on the players and the situation. I can tell you that when I ran it, it was not fun for half the group who felt so underpowered compared to everyone else, they didn't really want to be in the game. Which was fine, because they died to the first attack, since it was meant to actually harm the powerful people in the group and was an area of effect.

Like ALL roleplaying games, you can ignore the rules and the mechanics and simply freeform roleplay. And if you do it carefully, you can even have fun doing it with completely different power levels of people in your group. However, when and if combat ever happens, someone will certainly have less fun than everyone else.

After all, there's only so many public speaking and dog walking contests Joe the Plumber and Superman can enter before a Super Villain eventually attacks. Then Joe hides under a table and hopes like heck that no one spots him while Superman punches the villain across the city.

 

[pemerton]

the point he appeared to be making is that in a group filled with a guy who calls himself a "Fighter" whose abilities revolve around stabbing sharp things through enemies in the same group as a Rogue who really wants to poison the guards dinner....you'll find that most groups don't find the poisoning method to be as interesting or as tension building.

A lot of the thrill of D&D is the tension you get from combat

<snip>

That sort of tension is lacking from a "Can the Rogue make a Stealth check? Yes? Perfect, now we wait here for the next 30 minutes while they eat dinner" situation.

That it's likely that most groups will choose the method of defeating the guards that involves the entire group at once, involves more of the abilities on their characters sheet(people like to use cool abilities), and is more "glorious".

Yes.

There are systems that can make the "poisoning" scenario as dramatic as at least some versions of the combat scenario - between the way they support PC builds, the way they resolve skill checks (conflict resolution, "Let It Ride" etc), the way they factor in various sorts of augmenting checks (thus giving all PCs a meaningful way to affect the scene even if it is the rogue who actually delivers the poison), and even (I'm thinkining Burnng Wheel here) the way reduce the imperative towards "failure is not an option".

But I'm not expecting D&Dnext to be such a system. If it is, I'll be pleasantly surprised! (And obliged to eat my hat!)

 

[ForeverSlayer]

It really depends on the players and the situation. I can tell you that when I ran it, it was not fun for half the group who felt so underpowered compared to everyone else, they didn't really want to be in the game. Which was fine, because they died to the first attack, since it was meant to actually harm the powerful people in the group and was an area of effect.

Like ALL roleplaying games, you can ignore the rules and the mechanics and simply freeform roleplay. And if you do it carefully, you can even have fun doing it with completely different power levels of people in your group. However, when and if combat ever happens, someone will certainly have less fun than everyone else.

After all, there's only so many public speaking and dog walking contests Joe the Plumber and Superman can enter before a Super Villain eventually attacks. Then Joe hides under a table and hopes like heck that no one spots him while Superman punches the villain across the city.

Question? The people that felt undepowered, why didn't they play a more powerful OCC or RCC? It's not like the power levels between OCC and RCC's sneak up on you.

 

[Arlough]

Question? The people that felt undepowered, why didn't they play a more powerful OCC or RCC? It's not like the power levels between OCC and RCC's sneak up on you.

Maybe they really liked the idea of the Operator or Ley Line Walker, but discovered that was a mistake when they encountered a dragon off in the wilderness and the Glitterboy was the only thing that could accomplish anything. Also, all the people I know who played Rifts eventually came to the same conclusion. The game, while a fascinating concept, was fun to play despite the system, not because of it.* The whole thing was unbalanced, over complicated, and full of holes.
But perhaps this has changed in the last 15 years (I hope so.)

*: I must admit, I did have tremendous fun when I finally decided to just flat out abuse the rules. I fashioned a glitter boy and only fired his railgun while in the air (for radical maneuvering), or while standing on the enemy. I killed a dragon by standing on its head and firing off in the distance. As soon as the railgun activated, laser pitons that could, according to the description, penetrate anything shot down from my heels into his skull to anchor me and the recoil ripped me, and the dragon's skull, clean from its neck (and sent me flying about a mile into and through the side of a mountain and I landed in a warren of something I couldn't see that did lots of megadamage, but I think that is more because the GM was irritated that I killed his dragon)

 

[Sunseeker]

Question? The people that felt undepowered, why didn't they play a more powerful OCC or RCC? It's not like the power levels between OCC and RCC's sneak up on you.

Probably be size they were playing some theme or concept character.

Now, I know what you're thinking: "Well if they're playing their ideal character, they shouldn't care about power levels!"

I'm sure at character creation, they probably didn't. But the AOE example is a good point in this respect. If a game attempts to challenge the Superman, its going to obliterate the Joe Blow. If the game aims to make Joe Blow feel worthwhile, Superman will tear it to shreds with his left pinky.

The power scale that min-max characters live on is so above and beyond that even typical gaming expectations cannot reach them. Flattening the math helps, but only to the extent that a min-maxed character is only twice as powerful, not 10000x. It's unrealistic to eliminate the ability to min-max, its surprisingly popular and quite fun for many. It's equally unrealistic to expect math to be so flat as to be able to put high level characters and low level ones together and expect the latter to be meaningful.

The best option is to make all, or as many as is realistically possible, options viable and equitable(equitable does not mean equal). That way even two highly divergent characters can meaningfully contribute to the same game, even if not in the same areas.

 

[JamesonCourage]

They certainly could do that. However, the point he appeared to be making is that in a group filled with a guy who calls himself a "Fighter" whose abilities revolve around stabbing sharp things through enemies in the same group as a Rogue who really wants to poison the guards dinner....you'll find that most groups don't find the poisoning method to be as interesting or as tension building.

Oh. I missed that point, then, because it runs counter to most of my experience. Not that I don't believe you, just that's it's not intuitive to me. If someone in my group of players has a skill that makes them more likely to succeed (while fitting within whatever moral code they've chosen), they're very likely to use that skill set to achieve their goals. If that means the Fighter skips head to head combat this time, so be it.

It's interesting that "most" other groups will play in such a way that accommodates the Fighter but not the Rogue. Is it because they can both "contribute" by "stabbing sharp things through enemies" whereas the Fighter can't poison the guards? Is it more a focus on "everyone contributes now" than "everyone shines in their area"? Honest questions.

A lot of the thrill of D&D is the tension you get from combat: "Will I die this round? I don't know, hopefully he rolls low! Darn...he hit me, but I still have 3 hp left. Will the cleric heal me before I get hit again? Let's find out!"

That sort of tension is lacking from a "Can the Rogue make a Stealth check? Yes? Perfect, now we wait here for the next 30 minutes while they eat dinner" situation.

Well, I use an extended skill resolution system, that has a frame similar to that of skill challenges. Many times it has come down to "one more success and you achieve your goal, but one more failure and you fail at it." I've found plenty of tension in those moments. Especially if they've maxed out on failures early (2/3), and they start getting successes. In such a scenario, each success brings a little more hope, then a little more, then a lot more, and the tension builds.

Combat is also tense, mind you. My group does enjoy what you've described, so I see the appeal to choosing combat over poisoning if you're going for full blown tension for everyone rather than tension with the rogue. In my experience, the players can get especially tense when only one or two members participate in that type of extended skill resolution, though, because they're essentially helpless. When everything is resting on someone else and you can't contribute yourself but you need them to succeed in order for you to succeed, that's quite tension building. It's like if there's only one guy left in combat, and he's facing down that last bloodied orc, and they're trading blows, and he downs the orc while in single digit HP. Cheers from the table, because of the tension that arose.

That it's likely that most groups will choose the method of defeating the guards that involves the entire group at once, involves more of the abilities on their characters sheet(people like to use cool abilities), and is more "glorious".

Well, I don't see how things like Hide, Move Silently, Sleight of Hand, Bluff, Disguise, and the like would be great to use off the character sheet. My RPG has quite specific rules on sneaking around, lying to people, disguising yourself, slipping something into something else without it being seen, and the like. It is true that 4e basically cut these down to Bluff, Stealth, and Thievery (as far as I know), but that's still three skills that you can use to resolve action. Although I do see your point about involving the entire group, and that answers one of my earlier questions.

Although, its possible for a low level Rogue to sneak in and poison the guards meals and therefore have "contributed"....it's much more likely that the rest of the group says "We COULD have you sneak in and poison them...but let's just attack them instead."

Yes, this is very different from my group. If they're considering poison, it's because they want stealth (something likely lost via a frontal assault). If they want speed, they'll choose to ambush instead. But, they'll pick their goal (stealth, speed, etc.) and then choose a course of action that best fits that goal, utilizing only one party member if necessary. So, the idea of "we'll just attack, because everyone gets to do that" isn't intuitive to me, but I do understand what you're saying. Thanks for the reply. As always, play what you like