|
combat = mechanical subsystems used to determine the result of PC and NPC actions in combat
roleplay in combat = narrative description of said combat
D&D invests a great deal of attention and book pages into the former. Also, it is a Simulationst game, or at least aspiring to be one. Try to handwave something (usually - combat) in a more narrative game and nobody will notice, do it with D&D and there are high chances of somebody going "but but we have rules for that, you can't just handwave a rooftop chase when you have Complete Guide to Rooftop Chases on a Rainy Day by Shadowgoose Press !"
Considering the game is a roleplaying game, I'd say "all of them"The point stands. How many of the rules in the book are rules for roleplaying?
Take your Pathfinder RPG rulebook and remove all of the pages that contain rules for the combat parts. How much do you have left?
I thought so.
You thought what?
If we take out the parts which are strictly combat (armor, weapons, some spells, some feats), what you've got left is the majority of the book.
Now you're just being silly, and purposefully thick-headed. Let me define what I am viewing as "combat rules" for you then...anything that requires dice rolling or referencing of the rulebook in order to determine the chance of success. This includes skills (especially opposed checks), rules governing initiative, to-hit, and damage rolls, all non-utility spells including pre-combat buffs and the rules governing how they interact with characters, all rules related to tactical movement, and any part of character creation that will create a number that interacts with any of the aforementioned rules above.
That's how much of the book should be balanced.
Considering the game is a roleplaying game, I'd say "all of them"The point stands. How many of the rules in the book are rules for roleplaying?
Take your Pathfinder RPG rulebook and remove all of the pages that contain rules for the combat parts. How much do you have left?
I thought so.
You thought what?
If we take out the parts which are strictly combat (armor, weapons, some spells, some feats), what you've got left is the majority of the book.Now you're just being silly, and purposefully thick-headed. Let me define what I am viewing as "combat rules" for you then...anything that requires dice rolling or referencing of the rulebook in order to determine the chance of success. This includes skills (especially opposed checks), rules governing initiative, to-hit, and damage rolls, all non-utility spells including pre-combat buffs and the rules governing how they interact with characters, all rules related to tactical movement, and any part of character creation that will create a number that interacts with any of the aforementioned rules above.
That's how much of the book should be balanced.
How about you stop using some apparently randomly picked words and just use the words the rest of the real world uses to describe the same ideas - quantitative and qualitative or mathematics and narrative.
I mean, its pretty unfair to call me "thick-headed" for failing to understand you when you are using words which don't mean what you are using them to mean.
You were nitpicking, so I used the longer, more well-defined version, with specifics. It must have worked, because instead of trying to nitpick that set of specifics and insist that the roleplay and combat rules are one and the same with this reply, you simply fired back with a rather snide attempt to insult my intelligence.
I thought I made my definitions clear. And I don't see a way to make them more clear for you, sorry :)You defined combat as "combat = mechanical subsystems used to determine the result of PC and NPC actions in combat" which I said is a circular definition. To be more precise, what is "in combat"?
If my Paladin says some stirring speach to rally the troops as they prepare to charge the castle, is that "in combat"?
If my Bard says some stirring speach to the villagers in the inn which ends in them grabbing pitchforks and torches to storm the castle, is that "in combat"?
If my Wizard discovers some ancient demon's secret name and, thus, aids the party in taking down the monster, is that "in combat"?
If my Rogue discovers a secret path into the castle and guides the rest of the party in, is that "in combat"?
What is "in combat"?
Were any skill checks required to determine the outcome of the characters actions?
You were nitpicking, so I used the longer, more well-defined version, with specifics. It must have worked, because instead of trying to nitpick that set of specifics and insist that the roleplay and combat rules are one and the same with this reply, you simply fired back with a rather snide attempt to insult my intelligence.Now that I understand that what you meant to argue is that the rule book is mostly about the mechanics of the game and not the narrative, I do agree with you.
Pointing out that you aren't communicating very clearly isn't attacking your intelligence. On the other hand, your claim that I'm being thick-headed certainly is.
You are correct on that matter, and I apologize. I will point out though, that while the post of mine to which you were referring is a bit wordy, the words are all used well, and I purposefully avoided using any words such as "quantitative" or "qualitative" and instead was trying to only use words found within the rulebook.
Wow people are going with remarkable levels of obtuseness in their arguing style in this thread.
D&D is a combat focused RPG. While many turn it in to something else at it's core it's a wargame that's all grown up into a RPG. RPGs at there core are about playing a fictional character in a fictional setting in a shared group environment. Rules exist to provide conflict resolution.
D&D has a ton of different conflict types to resolve. You have social interactions, traps & puzzles, other knowledge/skill problems and combat situations. As a whole within D&D a huge percentage of the core rules is focused on combat abilities and combat resolution. There are certainly rules for noncombat task resolution in 3.x but in many ways they are a relatively recent addition to the game. 1e Non-Weapon Proficiencies :|
Skill use is probably not balanced currently. Some skills are pretty much fluff (profession, some knowledges) where as others have broad applicability in combat and non-combat scenarios (UMD and perception). Further the system has some sketchy numbers in terms of difficulties. Few adventure designers include a significant number of skill tasks that aren't trivial easy for a focused character, etc.
Social skill usage is one area that the game really struggles with as well. Social combat in the form of diplomacy, intimidate and bluff is highly dependent on play style. Some DMs allow diplomancers to engage in Charm Person effects and in other games diplomacy can be basically useless as every thing is basically "acted out".
Finally we have combat resolution. As a combat heavy game it's implied that everyone has a role to play in combat. A contrasting model would be a game like Shadowrun where Samurai and Adepts absolutely shred in combat and deckers are basically soft targets. D&D encounters are designed expressly with the idea that all PCs are contributing to the success and/or failure of the operation.
However the balance between classes is not even (and I'm not sure that would even be 100% desirable). 1e-3.x has 4 basic character types.
Fighting Man- Useful in combat but generally needs to specialize in either melee or ranged combat due to limited feats (3.x), proficiencies (1e-2e), gear (1e-3.x), party need. Out of combat utility has traditionally been small but one could argue that the 1e fighter was actually less 1-dimensional due to the absence of a codified skill system. Access to "I win" cards is limited to gear for the most part.
Across 1e-3.x the fighting man has generally been the best low level class. High HPs, good damage potential, abilities are always on. However for the most part the fighting man increases in power but it's a slow even progression.
Skill Monkey- Typically the Rogue. Prior to 3.x this guy was useful outside of combat (trapfinding, etc) but his combat utility suffered quite a bit outside of very limited backstab situations. He was typically a soft target of sorts with limited HP and AC. Further as the designated trap disarmer he was always placing himself in harms way.
3.x revised the rogue quite a bit so that the 3.x rogue is tougher in combat and his sneak attack is fairly reliable. He still lags behind the fighter in terms of combat utility but D&D designers have traditionally viewed enhanced skill use as requiring removing combat utility.
1e Rogue had the worst survival rate, once you got past the low levels (fast XP chart for the win!) the rogue was fairly solid but it was a pretty narrow band between fighters dominating the game and then arcane casters becoming gods. 3.x and Pathfinder rogues are actually pretty balanced vs fighters currently.
Divine Casters - Clerics and Druids. Prior to 2e the Cleric was basically a secondary tank / healbot / utility caster. 2e introduced some pretty decent Specialty Priests but apparently people still didn't play the cleric in games :(
Rather than just going "screw the divine/arcane split let's combine the black mage / white mage class abilities" and make the old cleric into a martial caster template (old school cleric would be a heal/buff focused gish, old school fighter mages would be blast/debuff focused gishes) 3.x decided to redeem the divine casters by enhancing their spellcasting as well as giving them additional abilties. End result was CoDzilla. Pathfinder helped nerf CoDzilla a huge amount but if you allow in 3.x splats he's still lurking.
Prior to 3.x The Divine Caster was pretty solid; good survival rates, decent rate of power growth, decent martial prowess and decent casting (although clerics often get relegated to healbot duty in many games). 3.x Divine Casters got the potential of being awesome in combat and in some cases rivaled Arcane casters in terms of raw high-level power.
Arcane Caster- The classic zero-to-hero class. In 1e it was a chore low level arcane casters basically struggled to survive long enough to get "real ultimate power". In 1e low level Wizards were basically "Ok I've casted my Sleep spell for the day, I can stand in the corner throwing darts or we can rest for the day now". High level casters were awesome-sauce but it was often a struggle to get to that point.
3.x changed the paradigm significantly. Wizards were less crunchy for the most part and they had more spells to rely on at low level but most important 3.x dramatically altered XP progression. Prior to 3.x 10+ level play was high level and many games never got much past 8-10th level. 3.x changed that so that it's really not that hard to get to 20th level in a fairly short period of time. Suddenly spells that were pretty much the domain of NPC antagonists became routine in many campaigns.
The problem is that many higher level spells essentially become I win cards. Wizards have spells that destroy niche protection, bypass obstacles with a word, and can end encounters in one round. And they don't even have to specialize to get this sort of power. The can memorize one spell load one day and the next day memorize something completely different.
The struggle with balancing that level of power in 1-20 level games is a pain in the ass. Low level play is hampered because the caster is still pretty much a total gimp and high level play is unsatisfying for a variety of reasons but combat basically boiling down to a initiative roll is a major contributer ;) Some people have basically gone "hey let's cap levels at the point in which caster break the game" thus the various E6-E12 variants. 4e went the other direction and basically turned everyone into a "caster" of sorts.
TL;DR but basically there is every opportunity to turn 3.x into D&D: Caster Edition if you allow it. Pathfinder goes a long way towards correcting the imbalance but I think there are additional changes that can/should happen while still retaining the core 3.x system.
Chess? Balanced? Queens are WAY overpowered; seriously, who would play a bishop? Like, I've seen ok bishop/knight hybrids, but they're just not as good as the queen.
Yes chess is balanced. The other player has the same queen and bishop that you have. They are identical to you.
Now if I'm getting you right you must be talking about he queen as class. I'm talking about the all you pieces as your class features.
Chess? Balanced?It significantly favors white.
It has an advantage in terms of recorded statistics among master level players in tournaments and some theorist indicate that white has an intrinsic advantage due to being in control of the attack but there are also theorists like Adorjan (Black is Ok) which suggest that white's advantage is illusory and that the advantage is limited to being able to force a draw easier. Some theory seems to indicate that if the black player looks for ways of seizing the initiative rather than playing for equality the advantage of white largely vanishes.
Finally since it's currently impossible to "solve chess" using current computer technology beyond a limited number of endgame situations it's really impossible to say for certainty that that white has an absolute advantage. The truth of the matter is that players tend to make mistakes in play and either side can seize advantage in the event of a significant mistake thereby erasing the white advantage.
Or simply make it harder overall to cast spells. More costly components, harder to get access to spells, and so on.
I might be saying this belatedly, but the approach of limiting uber effects with indirect drawbacks never works, particularly when uber effects also are extremely diverse, to the point of doing anything. All roadblocks can be circumnavigated with a bit of planning and mages still rock the world, often as if the restrictions on their power aren't even there. This is what happens in M:tA, M:tAw, Warhammer 2E/Dark Heresy, AD&D 2E and GURPs, of the systems I'm familiar with.
Moreover, every nerf of magic effectively means you're making the system more boring to play. Non-Bot9S martial characters inherently lack diversity and options in every edition so far (in 4E others merely join the one-trick club).