Why do all classes have to be balanced?

[Steely_Dan]

That's interesting. Never really tried that before. I like the difference caused by base attack (and similar mechanics), personally, from a certain genre perspective. You have that swordsman who is so much better than the regular soldiers, and it shows from his high attack bonus. If you take away base attack, I imagine that AC is also lower, and so the issue becomes one of ablative HP. That is, the swordsman is "getting hit" more often and losing hit points (even if in the fiction he dodges), and his "stay up" resource dwindles. Then, later that day (if his HP remains low), even a single soldier can drop him, and it doesn't need to be a lucky or surprise hit.

I've also replaced +X items with an Inherent bonus of +1 per 5 character levels to character's attacks, damage, and defences.

So the high level swordsman would have a greater attack bonus due to ability score increases and inherent bonus.

So a 1st level swordsman with an 18 in their primary ability score would have a +5 attack bonus (+4 from the 18, and +1 from the Inherent Bonus).

Whereas the 17th level swordsman would have a +10 attack bonus (assuming he increased his Str at levels 4, 8, and 14; and the Inherent bonus of +4).

Sounds like they are flattening the scaling in 5th Ed, which makes me immensely happy.

 

[Bluenose]

Whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa. You said you can't meaningfully contribute. Did you mean that you can't kick as much ass as a level 15? Because hey, that's true. But, each round, you can give a bonus to whoever needs it, and even do it a second time per round reactively if someone is attacked. Giving everyone +2 to rolls, and two other people (one reactively for maximum effect) a +3 bonus to attacks, AC, Reflex or Will saves, THP, or etc. is pretty significant when we're working with the numbers we are.

Well, each round until something that's a meaningful threat to a level 15 character decides to get you out of the way, you may be able to give that level 15 character a bonus to something they want to do. The first AoE spell, and suddenly you're a component in a 5000gp Raise Dead spell. Unless there isn't that much of your body left.

 

[JamesonCourage]

A 1st level character has HP, damage output, and a feat.

A hit die 1 warrior in my RPG might look like: HP 15, +10 damage, and around four-six feats (though they play a much bigger factor in my game).

A hit die 15 warrior in my RPG might look like: HP 74, +16 damage, and many feats (perhaps fifteen to twenty).

I've also replaced +X items with an Inherent bonus of +1 per 5 character levels to character's attacks, damage, and defences.

So the high level swordsman would have a greater attack bonus due to ability score increases and inherent bonus.

So a 1st level swordsman with an 18 in their primary ability score would have a +5 attack bonus (+4 from the 18, and +1 from the Inherent Bonus).

Whereas the 17th level swordsman would have a +10 attack bonus (assuming he increased his Str at levels 4, 8, and 14; and the Inherent bonus of +4).

Sounds like they are flattening the scaling in 5th Ed, which makes me immensely happy.

My RPG doesn't assume magical items either, so I'm totally with you there. The +25% chance to hit (while a +100% increase over the level 1) isn't enough for me, personally, for someone who is supposed to be at the genre level I want them. Not judging your system or anything, just stating my preference.

I am looking forward to flatter math in 5e, though I have expressed concern that it might be too flat. If a Cleric gets +0 to stealth-based activity (because he's got a 10 Dexterity) and a Rogue gets +6 (Dexterity 18, +2 skill bonus on sneaky stuff), the Rogue is only 30% more likely to succeed at sneaky stuff. That's not really wide enough for me, especially if you consider that it might not widen much over the levels (no skill ranks). Now, they did mention the Rogue being reliably better (maybe can "take 10" better than most, or in 5e, "take attribute" but with +2 or something?). So, I won't judge it yet, but I am concerned. As always, play what you like

Well, each round until something that's a meaningful threat to a level 15 character decides to get you out of the way, you may be able to give that level 15 character a bonus to something they want to do. The first AoE spell, and suddenly you're a component in a 5000gp Raise Dead spell. Unless there isn't that much of your body left.

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).

When my RPG doesn't have resurrection spells handy, it's important to have alternatives to death. Bodyguard feats, THP, the Heal skill (which the bodyguard guy rocks at, and might be able to use to revive the character even if he dies), reactive wards with spells to prevent damage, and the like all play a factor in survival. And at hit die 15 with a pretty combat-heavy party, they've got one guy with bodyguard feats, THP (especially the bodyguard), the Heal skill (bodyguard) and Rejuvenation magic with the magician (healing magic), reactive wards to prevent damage before it lands (magician), the ability to burrow if they need to escape (martial PC and necromancer PC and one NPC), the ability to fly (the same martial PC), and the like.

One area spell later (if it's not countered), the hit die 1 is likely alive, after reactively giving the bodyguard +3 to his Reflex save (and +2 from his magic earlier), who then steps in to save him (and almost certainly makes his save, since he has the highest saves in the party). (I almost feel like I need to post full builds with the PCs, because I have to keep going into more and more detail; the mechanics would look slightly recognizable, but terms like ACvM, ACvR, THP, and the like that are unique to my game deter me.)

I'm really sorry that you and Hussar can't accept that the hit die 1 might be able to meaningfully contribute to the hit die 15 party, but he can. Not nearly as much or as well as a hit die 15, but he can contribute, and he can shine. It just depends on the makeup of the game, the mechanics, the setting, the core assumptions, etc. And in my game, he gets to contribute, and he gets to shine. As always, play what you like

 

[ForeverSlayer]

What I want to know is where is this supposed level of contribution that keeps being brought up. Some people keep claiming that class X isn't contributing to the party enough. Okay well then show me what you are comparing class X's contribution to.

What is your definition of contribution?

 

[Doug McCrae]

What is your definition of contribution?

It's different for everyone. I like a very high degree of PC equality.

JamesonCourage was saying his players of 15th level PCs would be happy to have a level 1 along. I wouldn't! I'd feel bad for the poor guy playing the level 1. I'd be all, "Why can't he have a level 15 PC like the rest of us??!"

 

[Incenjucar]

I think that, for many people, contribution also includes agency and the significance of the character's composition. As in, "Does my being THIS character contribute meaningfully?"

 

[Minigiant]

What I want to know is where is this supposed level of contribution that keeps being brought up. Some people keep claiming that class X isn't contributing to the party enough. Okay well then show me what you are comparing class X's contribution to.

What is your definition of contribution?

Minigiant's Definition of RPG Contribution: The ability to greatly affect the success rate of the current victory condition without being a heavy strain on future advancement, efficiency, costs or successes.

AKA: Being needed to win, Being need to not lose, or Not Being a burden

Basically if your removal or replacement does not hurt your party greatly, you aren't really contributing.

I've been in a game before where 2 guys dropped and we did better since we didn't have to protect them nor share XP/gold. Their PCs were not bad either. But they were easily replaced by fanatically monkeys and intimidated kobolds which only cost crates of bananas.

 

[hanez]

I think that, for many people, contribution also includes agency and the significance of the character's composition. As in, "Does my being THIS character contribute meaningfully?"

I cant think of a single game in a variety of systems I've played (AD&D, 3.x, Pathfinder, Iron Heroes, AE, 4e) where that wasn't true for every character in the party.

I know as a DM I considered it my job to make sure it was true every single session. I'm not a fan of bards... but you can be sure if someone in one of my campaigns chooses a bard theres going to be a whole lot of Enemy kings, maidens and other NPCs vulnerable to musical suggestion. Isn't that what a DM is supposed to do? Choose a monk, I bet you I can find a few adventures we're going to need you for too. I can come up with a hook for an unarmed Champions tournament the party needs to explore in seconds while doing the same thing for the wizard and the fighter as welll.

 

[Doug McCrae]

I cant think of a single game in a variety of systems I've played (AD&D, 3.x, Pathfinder, Iron Heroes, AE, 4e) where that wasn't true for every character in the party.

Rifts, Stormbringer, and Champions are, I think, the three I've played with the biggest gulf in character effectiveness. Rifts because choice of class determines power level, and you can choose anything from a vagabond to a dragon. Stormbringer because race is determined by random roll, and some races, such as Melniboneans, are much better than others. Champions because it's very vulnerable to min-maxing.

D&D is a very well balanced system as it goes. 2e was probably the only edition that didn't care about it much.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

Rifts

I want to discuss RIFTS for a moment seeing as I am a long time player.

RIFTS is a game about choice, it's not about who can piss the farthest. If you want to play a Glitterboy who can blow things away from a mile out then you can, if you want to play a Vagabond who lives by his wits it's there as well.

You know well in advance the various power levels of OCCs and RCCs. It's not like you choose a Vagabond while someone chooses a Holy Terror and you become jealous because you aren't a giant suit of armor with cool abilities. If that is the character you want to play then then play it. The same goes for any game really. If power was all that matter then wouldn't almost all games be comprised of the same classes?