Things need to be accomplished. Not every class can accomplish all things, and that means diversity is needed. That diversity assures that people aren't stepping all over each other at the table doing the same things.
I think that's problematic design. Every class should be able to accomplish all things. Some classes should accomplish X better, while others Y better, but nothing should be barred completely.
Character A should not be able to do all things, but Class A should.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You aren't giving the figher (or frankly any non-pure arcane caster) access to 9th level arcane spells, so some things are barred.
Similarly you aren't giving Wizards full BaB and d10 hit points.
The classes are different, and can do different things. And that is as it should be.
The attempt to close all of these gaps is what leads to imbalance issues.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In my estimation, class combat balance is what ruined 4E for me. It's a terrible goal, unless you're making a video game with PVP.
Party role balance is a noble goal overall, and one that I find that Pathfinder does well.
Say no to combat balance. It's unrealistic, and makes a game bland in my eyes.
Going back to what I was saying before, we have three ways of overcoming a challenge: combat, skill checks, or magic.
Trying to get across a bridge guarded by a troll? Three options: fight the troll, Diplomacy/Bluff/Stealth (or even Knowledges, for riddle-loving ones) to get by the troll, or use magic to do either of those things (and more!).
Trying to prove your innocence in a court of law? More like two-ish options because, let's assume, you can't fight your way out of this one. Diplomacy, Sense Motive, Perform (oratory) and a handful of other skills could all be used or you could use divination magic.
Trying to travel thousands of miles in six seconds? Um, yeah, only magic can help you out with that one.
Three different kinds of challenges, all of which can be solved with magic.
The problem with balance isn't that there aren't classes that are awesome at what they do, but rather, that spellcasters can do everything well and address problems that .
I know nerf is a dirty word, but honestly, (and I say this as someone who's almost exclusively played arcane spellcasters for the last six years) magic should be great at solving magic problems and less great (but still useful) in solving combat and skill challenges.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not willing to suspend my disbelief enough to accept that a melee fighter, no matter how heroic, could even come close to one who bends reality with words and gestures. It's a common genre trope to have the arcane more powerful than the fighting class, with a few exceptions. Ars Magica was based on it, and I'd make the claim that early DnD was as well. That didn't make all players want to play a wizard, or feel useless as a fighter type. It wasn't until PVP type games, where this was even a discussion point in tabletop gaming.
Even in ODnD or 1st edition where this was most true, I rarely played a Mage, and I was never jealous of the power differential, rather I loved my place in the scheme of things protecting the wizards. It felt like a correct representation of what I'd read growing up.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In my estimation, class combat balance is what ruined 4E for me. It's a terrible goal, unless you're making a video game with PVP.
Party role balance is a noble goal overall, and one that I find that Pathfinder does well.
Say no to combat balance. It's unrealistic, and makes a game bland in my eyes.
I agree. Combat balance would essentially mean that every class is more or less equally good in combat, with differences in effectiveness being largely predicated on variations in circumstance (e.g. flanked or flat-footed enemies for sneak-attacking rogues, favored enemies for rangers, evil opponents for paladins, etc.).
I would say that it's okay for some classes to be worse at combat than others, but bearing one thing in mind: Classes that are below average in combat effectiveness are screwed over when combat constitutes 50% or more of the game, which it often is.
|
|
In my estimation, class combat balance is what ruined 4E for me. It's a terrible goal, unless you're making a video game with PVP.
Party role balance is a noble goal overall, and one that I find that Pathfinder does well.
Say no to combat balance. It's unrealistic, and makes a game bland in my eyes.
I agree. Combat balance would essentially mean that every class is more or less equally good in combat, with differences in effectiveness being largely predicated on variations in circumstance (e.g. flanked or flat-footed enemies for sneak-attacking rogues, favored enemies for rangers, evil opponents for paladins, etc.).
I would say that it's okay for some classes to be worse at combat than others, but bearing one thing in mind: Classes that are below average in combat effectiveness are screwed over when combat constitutes 50% or more of the game, which it often is.
Agreed, although I'd say "screwed" is stronger than I'd claim. Not optimal, isn't inneffective. At the home game level bad DMs often ruin things for everyone. At the society leveled, I'd claim that most players now min/max and pick builds that are precisely crafted for that play style, tht it's less of an issue. And even if they aren't, that player knows full well what his/her choices mean, and can still enjoy the experience. Heck I made a dwarven paladin, and so far it's fine. Definitely not a ideal race/class mix. ;)
|
|
I don't even think you need to nerf what spell casters can do if you just assure some level of party dependency so that everyone has a place and purpose.
Magic is supposed to be incredibly powerful. But it is also supposed to be dangerous, and historically it's use makes you vulnerable.
Return to a time when casters need protection, and you don't need to remove their abilities.
As in the example of what they can do when they can't get through spell resistance, they can then buff others to be successful. Everyone still has a purpose or role.
I don't think that stated goal of the OP is incorrect. I just think increasing power level isn't going to get you there. At the end of the day those who can use magic will always have more options available.
So you have to ask, what is the trade off for those additional options.
Historically it has been fragility and limited use per day. When both of those things are under pressure to be lessened, you devalue the contribution of the classes who aren't fragile that focus on abilities that aren't limited use per day.
Historically it has been fragility and limited use per day. When both of those things are under pressure to be lessened, you devalue the contribution of the classes who aren't fragile that focus on abilities that aren't limited use per day.
Low levels definitely enforce the need to economize spells, but the presence of wands, scrolls, staffs, and potions can completely override that limitation.
Fragility is kinda there, but as previously discussed, it isn't really an issue.
I've been playing around with the idea of reducing the action economy available to spellcasters, house ruling that standard action spells require the full use of their turn (like a full-attack action, but not like a 1 round summon monster spell). I don't know if that'd work in practice, however.
You aren't giving the figher (or frankly any non-pure arcane caster) access to 9th level arcane spells, so some things are barred.
Similarly you aren't giving Wizards full BaB and d10 hit points.
The classes are different, and can do different things. And that is as it should be.
The attempt to close all of these gaps is what leads to imbalance issues.
You don't need to give him 9th level spells, or full BAB to the wizards. That's not what you can do, that's the tools you use to do it.
Wizards can fight, interact with the enviroment (including traps and hazards), and deal with social interaction (including investigation) using spells. Fighters could fight, interact with the enviroment and deal with social interactions using different things.
I'm not willing to suspend my disbelief enough to accept that a melee fighter, no matter how heroic, could even come close to one who bends reality with words and gestures. It's a common genre trope to have the arcane more powerful than the fighting class, with a few exceptions.
Could you cite a few examples? Because I remember Ulysses defeating Circe, Conan beating up the arse of Thot Amon,and Beowulf defeating Grendel's Mother. The only situations where I see arcane users are clearly superiors is in those where the main character is wizard(like Belgarion) or where the wizard is a plot hook and not a main character (like Gandalf).
I see much more examples of tales where magic corrupts, or is dangerous to use, yet none of those appear in D&D. In Sword and Sorcery, ussually the main character uses his Sword to defeat Sorcery.Even in ODnD or 1st edition where this was most true, I rarely played a Mage, and I was never jealous of the power differential, rather I loved my place in the scheme of things protecting the wizards. It felt like a correct representation of what I'd read growing up.
As exposed in this thread, in old editions fighters had less reasons to be jelous of wizards. Because wizards needed protection. And magic was powerful but scarce. 3e killed that, wizards are no longer squisihy (with Con Bonus being way more important than the hit dice), they no longer need protection (with spells being nigh impossible to interrupt) and they no longer have scarce magic resources (with Scribe Scroll being a basic lvl 1 feat).
As fighter, I was very happy with my role in AD&D 2e. But I feel much more gimped in 3.X
You aren't giving the figher (or frankly any non-pure arcane caster) access to 9th level arcane spells, so some things are barred.
Similarly you aren't giving Wizards full BaB and d10 hit points.
The classes are different, and can do different things. And that is as it should be.
The attempt to close all of these gaps is what leads to imbalance issues.
You don't need to give him 9th level spells, or full BAB to the wizards. That's not what you can do, that's the tools you use to do it.
Wizards can fight, interact with the enviroment (including traps and hazards), and deal with social interaction (including investigation) using spells. Fighters could fight, interact with the enviroment and deal with social interactions using different things.
the best way to balance the classes is to reduce the number of them and lessen the number of specific rules exceptions. fewer classes can still have plenty of options through a menu system, in fact, a combination of a menu and point buy system could work wonders.
another good idea is to rebalance magic to work around a different mechanism that doesn't involve limited use. which removes the 15 minute adventure day.
Dragon Age Origins does just fine with only 3 classes and a menu system for abilities.
you have a series of menus of abilities available to all characters, but some classes get more choices from certain menus than others. and mana is hardly an issue of any relevance at all.
as an example
warriors get more choices from the martial menu
rogues get more choices from the skill menu
and mages get more choices from the spell menu
but there exists overlap for the dabblers.
Dragons Age also is somewhat illustrative of the separation as well. My experience is it is very difficult to play without a diverse party.
Soloing with a wizard is pretty easy (arcane warrior). Other classes have it harder to solo the game. :)
It's difficult, but not impossible is the point. You can do just fine with a party of Oghren, Sten, Alistair and you as a Fighter, just as well as you can do with Wynn/Morrigan/Someone else with you as a Mage, or Zevran/Leliana/Someone else with you as a Rogue. Replace "Someone Else" with Dog (I named 'im Fluffy.) if you want a specific example.
It gets frustrating not having someone to pick locks, but it doesn't stop you from beating the main game itself, lack of a tank means you need to rely more on staying out of reach but doesn't make combat impossible, and lack of buffs only hinders your progress and doesn't cripple it.
Basically, I agree with you that not everyone needs to be able to do everything, to an extent, but everyone should be able to contribute meaningfully to the overall progress though the main branch of the AP/Campaign/Module/Whatever, even if they can't hit all the sidequests and hidden goodies nearly as effectively, or even at all.
@Gustavo: Yeah Arcane Warrior pretty much busted that game.
"You know what would be cool?"
"What?"
"What if the class with the most powerful AoE and buffs also got teh ability to wear armor and use weapons as good as a Fighter, or hit even harder because their Spellcraft is probably higher than the Warrior's Strength?"
"Sounds great! Fund it!"
I mean I loved the hell out of it, it was fun and I abused it as much as possible, but still it was not the epitome of balance.
|
|
It's difficult, but not impossible is the point. You can do just fine with a party of Oghren, Sten, Alistair and you as a Fighter, just as well as you can do with Wynn/Morrigan/Someone else with you as a Mage, or Zevran/Leliana/Someone else with you as a Rogue.
It gets frustrating not having someone to pick locks, but it doesn't stop you from beating the main game itself, lack of a tank means you need to rely more on staying out of reach but doesn't make combat impossible, and lack of buffs only hinders your progress and doesn't cripple it.
Basically, I agree with you that not everyone needs to be able to do everything, to an extent, but everyone should be able to contribute meaningfully to the overall progress though the main branch of the AP/Campaign/Module/Whatever, even if they can't hit all the sidequests and hidden goodies nearly as effectively, or even at all.
Wynne is functionally a cleric, and the all tank group misses healing even in a game that doesn't involve flight.
Nah, it's pretty easy to get if you go to the Forest first. After that, you can solo no probs.
Liberal use of healing items is possible, though a mite expensive. I BELIEVE Fighters can get access to Alchemy (that was what you needed to make Healing stuff I think?), so again: Difficult and expensive, but possible.
Using Dragon Age as an example, combat balance is pretty darn good. The problem is, however, that class choice does little to change how you interact with the rest of the game, except that the rogue who can pick locks. Other than combat, there aren't any other other challenges that one class can adress that another cannot. That's not the case when it comes to tabletop play.
the 3 menus option could work.
you would determine your class by how many choices you get from each menu
the menus could be labeled Combat. Skill, and Spell and each player would assign a number from 2, 4, or 6 to each menu, getting triple the number of choices from the desired menu at character creation and getting the abilities to advance that many perk choices per level. up to max ranks equal to your level.
for example
at 1st level. Umbri the monochrome puppetteer, a master political manipulator, assassin, journalist, and nymph of darkness
she would get at 1st level
4 combat points
12 skill points
8 magic points
then second level and every level after she would recieve
2 combat ability points
6 skill ability points
4 magic ability point
which could be used to upgrade an existing perk or buy a new one at rank 1.
Umbri's Build
Skill Points
Persuasion Rank 1
Subterfuge Rank 1
Thievery Rank 1
Engineering Rank 1
Perception Rank 1
Linguistics Rank 1
Stealth Rank 1
Performance Rank 1
Disguise Rank 1
Cuteness Rank 1
Tailoring Rank 1
Journalism Rank 1
Magic Perks 8 total
Enchanting Rank 1
Invisibility Rank 1
Mind reading Rank 1
Spider climb rank 1
Create Image Rank 1
Shadow Manipulation Rank 1
Illusion Rank 1
Arcane Armor Rank 1
Combat Perks 4 total
concentration rank 1
dodge rank 1
daggers rank 1
dirty fighting rank 1
Umbri spends her life as an assassin and political mastermind, climbing the political ladder to get back at the imperial scientists that created her, not due to her existence, but due to her dislike for the lack of freedom she felt. using the skills she learned working as an assasin under their ranks against them.
level 2
Skills Perks
Umbri upgrades
persuasion to rank 2
stealth to rank 2
perception to rank 2
linguistics to rank 2
disguise to rank 2
and journalism to rank 2
magic perks
Umbri improves the following skills to rank 2
illusion
shadow manipulation
mind reading
and arcane armor
combat perks
Umbri improves concentration and dirty fighting to rank 2.
at level 3
Umbri has been developing an element of cuteness, taking on elements of the childhood she was denied. she spends 2 skill ranks raising cuteness to rank 3, has proven to be quite the tendency as a journalist and diplomat. spending one point each to upgrade both of those skills to rank 3. in addition she beefs up persuasion to rank 3 and performance to rank 2
Persuasion Rank 3
Subterfuge Rank 1
Thievery Rank 1
Engineering Rank 1
Perception Rank 3
Linguistics Rank 3
Stealth Rank 2
Performance Rank 2
Disguise Rank 2
Cuteness Rank 3
Tailoring Rank 1
Journalism Rank 3
she has become more intune with the shadows, raisisng her shadow manipulation and illusion to rank 3 and took a crash course in enchanting, increasing her enchanting to rank 3 by spending 2 ranks
Enchanting Rank 3
Invisibility Rank 1
Mind reading Rank 2
Spider climb rank 1
Create Image Rank 1
Shadow Manipulation Rank 3
Illusion Rank 3
Arcane Armor Rank 2
Combat Perks:
Umbri has become better at dodging and fighting dirty to keep the perverts off of her cute nymph self with that powerful enchanted dagger she wields
concentration rank 2
dodge rank 2
daggers rank 1
dirty fighting rank 3
The 3 menus option could work.
But are Combat, Skill, and Spell all equally valuable?
If most of the time is spent in combat where the Skill and Spell menus are not useful, then characters who haven't invested heavily in Combat will be at a marked disadvantage.
In D&D 3.X/Pathfinder, we seem to have a different kind of problem at work. One where investing in Spell makes you just as or more likely to succeed in Skill and Combat challenges than those who dedicated themselves to either or both of those menus instead of Spell.
Really, if we looked at the menus as they relate to base classes, we might see something close to this:
Wizard/Sorcerer: Spell Primary, Skill Secondary, Combat Tertiary
Cleric/Druid: Spell Primary, Combat Secondary, Skill Tertiary
Rogue/Monk/Ranger(?): Skill Primary, Combat Secondary, Spell Tertiary
Fighter/Barbarian: Combat Primary, Skill Secondary, Spell Tertiary
Paladin: Combat Primary, Spell Secondary, Skill Tertiary
Bard: Skill Primary, Spell Secondary, Skill Tertiary
As mentioned previously, however, all challenges can be addressed with Spell, which cannot be said of Skill and Combat.
It's a common genre trope to have the arcane more powerful than the fighting class, with a few exceptions.
What genre are you talking about? I'm aware of only two kinds of "magic > no magic" in source material (and by that, I mean books/movies/etc. not written with D&D in mind):
1) Media in which the main character is a magic user (ex: Earthsea--though the point there is actually that a magic user should avoid using magic as much as possible)
2) Media in which the magic user is a guide for the main characters and serves more as a deus ex machina than a character (ex: Gandalf, of course)
And come on, the entire Sword and Sorcery genre is about non-magical guys beating the crap out of dark sorcerers. The magic users easily conquer and enslave common folk, but the badass heroes just shake off their power and punch them out.
So, yeah, I'm really curious what you can come up with. Show me some kind of source material for casters being better than normals wherein the caster still parties with normals.
Ars Magica was based on it, and I'd make the claim that early DnD was as well.
It unquestionably wasn't. There were checks and balances in pre-3rd D&D. Being a spellcaster meant you were inches from death all the time. Rare was the spellcaster that actually survived long enough to get any powerful spells, and even if they did, they were still totally dependent on their Fighters to protect them.
That didn't make all players want to play a wizard, or feel useless as a fighter type. It wasn't until PVP type games, where this was even a discussion point in tabletop gaming.
It has nothing to do with PvP, it has to do with removing all the fragility the casters felt (being lower level, having a ton less HP, getting less benefit from physical stats, having easily interruptable spells, etc.).
Even in ODnD or 1st edition where this was most true, I rarely played a Mage, and I was never jealous of the power differential, rather I loved my place in the scheme of things protecting the wizards. It felt like a correct representation of what I'd read growing up.
I have literally never read a book involving protecting the wizard while he did everything. What did you read?
But besides that, Mages weren't better than martials before 3rd edition. They were actually balanced back then.
Well there are a lot of anime where the magic-using main character is better than the normies.
But in those shows it's usually the "Badass Normal" who's the second strongest character in the series, and besides that the main character is usually a good physical combatant as well.
I can think of a lot of examples where magic users utterly fail at life compared to martials though. A lot of the Final Fantasy games seem to go that route, at the very least.
I don't agree with his point. Is that no longer allowed?
Help me break this down better. Don't try to debate me on my post. Highlight the parts you don't understand and ask some questions. Because your response indicates to me that you did not understand what I said.
Here are two examples of the problem with non-player-engagement.
Example one: There is killer on the loose and no one knows his identity. The DAMNSEXY classes get things done. Not by being awesome at every aspect of investigation. But by having different methods for interacting with this part of the game in different ways. They will each bring something different to the table that will matter more or less in any given investigation. Maybe during one investigation the power to do X as apposed to Y isn't all that useful. But you aren't bared from participated in investigations AT ALL.
The COMBATANT class sits around twiddling his thumbs. Maybe the player plays some pokemon.
Example Two: There is an infiltration mission. You need to cross into enemy territories, bypass patrols, and sneak into a well guarded fort and meet up with an informant and escort them out of the castle and back into safe territory. The DAMNSEXY classes all have ways to be sneaky. They all have ways to participate and they all bring something different to the table.
The COMBATANT class is likely a detriment to the party and/or a drain on their resources because he doesn't do things. Other classes or macguffins do things for him.
Let's compare that to combat. The DAMNSEXY classes and the COMBATANTS all fight. Every time they get into a fight different classes have different chances to shine based on the tactics used by both friend and foe and the surrounding environment. No body is just sitting around twiddling their thumbs.
Chiming in on the Dragon Age discussion...it isn't really a good comparison. Dragon Age is a single player game. If class A can do X and class B can't but can do Y and Class A can't...it doesn't matter. Because a single player is controlling all the characters. So Class A's ability to do X and Class B's ability to do Y is still the players ability to do X and Y. Balance means something different when creating a single player experience.
the revised skill list needs to be tweaked and some skills need to be tweaked
example disciplines with reduced numbers
with this, i reccommend choosing a list and assigning 1, 2, or 3. which become 2, 4 and 6 points per level respectively. with 4 floating points per level that may be spent on any list.
Combat
- Endurance (governs concentration, vitality, stamina, and fortitude saves)
- Reflexes (governs dodging, accuracy, block, parry, and initiative)
- Weapon (choose a weapon group such as daggers, bows or axes, increase damage bonuses with that weapon group, everybody recieves their first weapon group at rank 1 for free)
- Armor (choose light or heavy armor or shields, increase damage resistance of said armor, lower encumbrance with said armor.)
- Athletics (increase athletic skills and carrying capacity, such as climbing or swimming)
- Acrobatics (increase acrobatic ability such as jumping, balancing, or tumbling)
- Speed: (increases speed)
- Recovery (determines natural healing rate)
- dirty fighting (governs bonuses when fighting dirty)
Skill
- Persuasion (persuade others, whether through bluffing, intimidation, or diplomacy)
- Thievery (Stealing, disabling traps and security devices, knowledge of thievery related talents)
- Perception (ability to percieve surroundings, enviroment, creatures, objects, and cues. essentially a hybrid of perception and sense motive,)
- linguisitcs (ability to speak, read, write and understand languages)
- profession (able to utilize a profession, know intimate details about that profession, make money working that profession, and gain profession related boons, every character receves 1 profession at rank 1 for free at character creation. profession can be anything from accountant or journalist to performer)
- stealth (ability to sneak, disguise oneself, infiltrate a society and blend into a crowd or similar group)
- craft (choose a crafting skill, able to gain knowledge and boons pertaining to the craft, and craft related items. every character recives 1 craft at rank 1 for free at character creation)
- Driving/Riding (ability to drive a vehicle or ride a mount)
- knowledge (choose a major subject, you gain knowledge of that subject)
magic perks
- Abjuration (skill at wards, and defensive buffs increases damage resistance when unarmored)
- Conjuration (skill at summoning, some summons may require a means of persuasion)
- Restoration (skill at magical healing and curing ailments. overlaps with certain crafts)
- Enchantment (Skill at enhancing items)
- Elemental Mastery (choose one element, whether a classic like fire, water, earth or air, or something unusual like light, shadow, or gravity. you gain control of that element and the ability to produce it)
- illusion (your ability to create illusions, versatile, but vulnerable to disbelief, governs other mental based magic such as stuff that influences perception or emotion)
- Necromancy (your skill at creating hindering effects, reanimating the dead, and controlling the undead)
- psychic (choose a psychic discipline, you gain abilities pertaining to that psychic discipline, up to DM discretion)
- augmentation (your skill at using magic to augment offense)
- magical skill (choose an ability from the combat or skill list, you may purchase it as a magical skill instead, it is treated as the appropriate skill. may be taken more than once, but total selected perks cannot equal more than half your skills in the appropriate category)
1st level Umbri
Combat
- Endurance Rank 1
- Reflexes Rank 1
- Daggers Rank 1
- Armor Rank 0
- Athletics Rank 0
- Acrobatics Rank 0
- Speed: Rank 0
- Recovery Rank 0
- dirty fighting Rank 1
Skill
- Persuasion Rank 1`
- Thievery Rank 1
- Perception Rank 1
- linguisitcs Rank 1
- profession (Journalist) Rank 1
- stealth Rank 1
- craft (Tailoring) Rank 1
- Driving/Riding Rank 0
- knowledge (Politics) Rank 1
magic perks
- Abjuration Rank 1
- Conjuration Rank 0
- Restoration Rank 0
- Enchantment Rank 1
- Elemental Mastery (Shadow) Rank 1
- illusion Rank 1
- Necromancy Rank 0
- psychic (mind reading) Rank 1
- augmentation Rank 0
- magical skill (athletics) 1
Chiming in on the Dragon Age discussion...it isn't really a good comparison. Dragon Age is a single player game. If class A can do X and class B can't but can do Y and Class A can't...it doesn't matter. Because a single player is controlling all the characters. So Class A's ability to do X and Class B's ability to do Y is still the players ability to do X and Y. Balance means something different when creating a single player experience.
No, it's quite a good example. Taking out the fact that a single player is controlling all 4 characters, it has the same sort of class system. If the classes in Dragon Age worked like the classes in Pathfinder, it wouldn't matter a lick if one guy was controlling everyone...they simply wouldn't be able to do those things. It's a good example of the basic (very basic), barebones outline of how the classes should work in any party-based game really: Everybody has a niche, and nobody is as good as them in that niche, but they are not stuck in ONLY that niche, they have the ability to reach out of it.
Alistair/Oghren/Sten/Fighter PC works just fine in Dragon Age, because every class still brings a variety of skills to the table.
Meanwhile, a party of Paladin/Barbarian/Fighter (Two-Hander)/Fighter or any of the previous (Sword and Board/Two-Hander/Archery), which are the analogues to those characters in Pathfinder, is likely to find themselves stymied by any unexpected situation, though the Paladin's minor spellcasting and stuff helps with that a smidge.
Yeah, but the Dragon Age example still only addresses combat balance, not game balance.
Chiming in on the Dragon Age discussion...it isn't really a good comparison. Dragon Age is a single player game. If class A can do X and class B can't but can do Y and Class A can't...it doesn't matter. Because a single player is controlling all the characters. So Class A's ability to do X and Class B's ability to do Y is still the players ability to do X and Y. Balance means something different when creating a single player experience.
What is a good example?
I really struggle to appreciate your point - it seems quite counter to how class-based RPGs are, in my experience. Can you give an example of a TTRPG which follows the approach to class design you're outlining?
No, it's quite a good example. Taking out the fact that a single player is controlling all 4 characters, it has the same sort of class system. If the classes in Dragon Age worked like the classes in Pathfinder, it wouldn't matter a lick if one guy was controlling everyone...they simply wouldn't be able to do those things. It's a good example of the basic (very basic), barebones outline of how the classes should work in any party-based game really: Everybody has a niche, and nobody is as good as them in that niche, but they are not stuck in ONLY that niche, they have the ability to reach out of it.Alistair/Oghren/Sten/Fighter PC works just fine in Dragon Age, because every class still brings a variety of skills to the table.
Meanwhile, a party of Paladin/Barbarian/Fighter (Two-Hander)/Fighter or any of the previous (Sword and Board/Two-Hander/Archery), which are the analogues to those characters in Pathfinder, is likely to find themselves stymied by any unexpected situation, though the Paladin's minor spellcasting and stuff helps with that a smidge.
You misunderstand me. Of course balance is important if the player is expected to care about a class it needs to contribute. It just matters in a different way. In a single player game it's okay that only rogues pick locks or have anyway to open treasure chests because rogues are just an extension of a single players ability to interact with the game. So as long as he has the option to be or have a rogue in his party. Then the player has the ability and is personally engaged.
Yeah, but the Dragon Age example still only addresses combat balance, not game balance.
there is only one broken dragon age class, the arcane warrior. otherwise, everything else is balanced. both in and out of combat. same lists of combat, magic, and skill talents for everyone, with a few exceptions.
rogues have worse defenses than warriors, but deal more damage, inflict conditions, and have more skills, while warriors have the best defenses, and the hardest single hits, and mages have the best crowd control but the worst single target damage. short of spell novaing.
i took their ideas when i designed my menus in my previous posts and showed a bardlike example in spoilers.
I think there's a very tangible level of system expectations that ultimately trumps what would otherwise be considered respectable goals/hallmarks in terms of balancing a game or making level the playing field between the different classes in those systems. When designing an entirely new system, I think it's easier to get away with focusing very heavily on balancing the game across all levels. Games that have existed for several decades, on the other hand, are harder to get away with that sort of thing. I think 3e and 4e reflect that, where D&D is concerned. Older versions may come off as very poorly balanced (sometimes laughably so), but to be very frank, "it is what it is." That's D&D. It might not be the most incredibly-written game ever to exist, but it has a very set niche.
In the case of Cupcake Crusades, achieving this level of balance would be easier, because you aren't carrying the baggage of four or five decades of legacy that you have to honor (lest you risk losing longtime customers). Assuming instead that you are talking about Cupcake Crusades 2nd Edition, if you abandon most of the paradigms and class dynamics that were evident in the original game in favor of making all classes more viable (if less unique), you stand a good chance of alienating those fans who liked the first version specifically because of that unique class array.
It then becomes a question of not whether achieving more balance is worthwhile, but is balance more important than identity (both system identity and class identity)? Even assuming D&D had a perfect system (everyone can compete equally across all levels of play), if it played nothing like the older editions of D&D at all, I'm willing to wager a similar rift would still exist.
Having said all that, it's still possible to strive towards greater balance within these system expectations while maintaining the same overall identity. I think Pathfinder is a good example of this (although I personally find a lot of the 3.0 baggage a little cumbersome).
You misunderstand me. Of course balance is important if the player is expected to care about a class it needs to contribute. It just matters in a different way. In a single player game it's okay that only rogues pick locks or have anyway to open treasure chests because rogues are just an extension of a single players ability to interact with the game. So as long as he has the option to be or have a rogue in his party. Then the player has the ability and is personally engaged.
That's true I suppose. I was looking at it from a more "inside the game" perspective. Taking out the fact that only one person is playing, I think it mirrors some common party dynamics very well, but does them ever so slightly better because the balance was focused on the individual, but taking that factor out, would it really be so very different if each person was controlling one of the characters? It seems like it would still work very well if one person controlled Zevran, one guy controlled Morrigan, one guy controlled Alistair, and so on. IMO if Pathfinder had been built from the ground up with a single person in mind, like that game was, it would have ironically been better balanced for groups.
Pathfinder's a much more complex game simply because of the number of options available, but I think that kind of "perfect storm" dynamic could be captured for any party-based game.
Even Dragon Age 2, which I consider to be a stomp in the nuts to anyone who liked the first game, did a very good job of that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Pathfinder was designed from the remains of 3.5 edition D&D. but it still has room within it's second edition to modify the paradigm as drastically as D&D 3.0 changed compared to D&D 2.0. meaning pathfinder 2.0 could be a vary different game. but outside of a few names, every new edition of D&D was different from the rest.
a D&D or pathfinder edition constructed in the future could for example drop vancian casting in favor of a mana pool system without too much issue beyond offending a handful of oldschoolers that have either retired, or are highly settled in their ways and unnaccepting of change.
a lot of the new generation tabletop RPers pull backgrounds from sources like Anime, Wuxia Movies and MMORPGs, many of which put new spins on old mechanics. those genres have evolved for nearly as long as TTRPGs have been around, but TTRPGS have had a slower rate of innovation, either do to a form of contentness with the systems around the world, a greater tolerance for the system's flaws, silent majorities with extremely vocal minorities, a lack of people who care to become designers, or even the issue with many tabletop gamers not wishing to purchase the material for their favored hobby when they could save a lot of money through SRDs and PDFs from friends.
Pathfinder would win me over, if its basic mechanics were a bit simpler and special abilities were a lot less cluttered.
Designing my own game system I came to realise, you don't need the huge mods to rolls all over the place, it doesn't have to be add this this and this to get big fat numbers. KISS (keep it simple stupid, as my kick-boxing coach used to say).
It doesn't have to be what I made of course, I just want it smoother and better, not just a variant of 3.5 with more tacked on trying to pretty itself up by giving people what they want: more power, less weaknesses (d4 hit die gone for instance), more abilities. That just gets too crunchy after a while.
a spell point/power point/mana pool similar to psionics unleashed would be a lot simpler to manage than vancian slots. but the huge mods aren't needed. but if they reduce HP numbers, they need to reduce damage numbers as well.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wynne is functionally a cleric, and the all tank group misses healing even in a game that doesn't involve flight.It's difficult, but not impossible is the point. You can do just fine with a party of Oghren, Sten, Alistair and you as a Fighter, just as well as you can do with Wynn/Morrigan/Someone else with you as a Mage, or Zevran/Leliana/Someone else with you as a Rogue.
It gets frustrating not having someone to pick locks, but it doesn't stop you from beating the main game itself, lack of a tank means you need to rely more on staying out of reach but doesn't make combat impossible, and lack of buffs only hinders your progress and doesn't cripple it.
Basically, I agree with you that not everyone needs to be able to do everything, to an extent, but everyone should be able to contribute meaningfully to the overall progress though the main branch of the AP/Campaign/Module/Whatever, even if they can't hit all the sidequests and hidden goodies nearly as effectively, or even at all.
I have soloed the game with a warrior in harder difficulty. And I mean ONE warrior, not a party of four. Not having healing did not stop me, so I don't see how it could stop a full party.
A group of 4 wizards will breeze through it|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wynne is functionally a cleric, and the all tank group misses healing even in a game that doesn't involve flight.It's difficult, but not impossible is the point. You can do just fine with a party of Oghren, Sten, Alistair and you as a Fighter, just as well as you can do with Wynn/Morrigan/Someone else with you as a Mage, or Zevran/Leliana/Someone else with you as a Rogue.
It gets frustrating not having someone to pick locks, but it doesn't stop you from beating the main game itself, lack of a tank means you need to rely more on staying out of reach but doesn't make combat impossible, and lack of buffs only hinders your progress and doesn't cripple it.
Basically, I agree with you that not everyone needs to be able to do everything, to an extent, but everyone should be able to contribute meaningfully to the overall progress though the main branch of the AP/Campaign/Module/Whatever, even if they can't hit all the sidequests and hidden goodies nearly as effectively, or even at all.
I have soloed the game with a warrior in harder difficulty. And I mean ONE warrior, not a party of four. Not having healing did not stop me, so I don't see how it could stop a full party.
A group of 4 wizards will breeze through it
And again the question is if this is a good thing.
|
|
Blending the abilities is one way to play. It is why there was so much push for a Gish Class.
But some people will want to play non-magic fighters and some people will want the maximum amount of magic available.
And these extremes will need to come with trade offs, just as even playing the middle road comes with trade offs.
Even Dragon Age 2, which I consider to be a stomp in the nuts to anyone who liked the first game, did a very good job of that.
Ok, what the heck? I liked Dragon Age a lot, but I loved Dragon Age 2 even more.
For me, the big selling points were:
1) Class Balance was worlds better. In Dragon Age 1, the Mage--and not even the Arcane Warrior, just the Mage in general--was far and away the best class. It felt just like Casters and Crapsacks, because the Mage could cripple and incapacitate entire forces of enemies while the "regulars" just cleaned up. You could play the game as a Warrior or a Rogue, of course, even totally solo (I did), but once you played a mage, you felt like a Fighter eventually feels in D&D--you're "just damage." Damage is mundane and unimpressive if the alternative is incapacitating wide swathes of enemies.
2) The story was 417824618765 times less depressing. In DA1, there were zero happy endings. Ok, so if you were a male Warden, there was a semi-happy ending, I guess, but for female wardens? Especially those who loved Allistair? No, only bleak awfulness awaits.
3) I'm playing up the other reasons a lot, but this is like 75% of why I loved it more: hit detection! In Dragon Age 1, my Warrior makes a big wide swing and--it hits only the guy I've click on. In Dragon Age 2, it hits everyone the weapon passes through. Drool...
And again the question is if this is a good thing.I have soloed the game with a warrior in harder difficulty. And I mean ONE warrior, not a party of four. Not having healing did not stop me, so I don't see how it could stop a full party.
A group of 4 wizards will breeze through it
Of course it's a good thing. I absolutely can't figure out why it wouldn't be. I get that you want everyone in the party to be useful, and I do, too. But you seem to be saying that they have to be different classes to all feel useful, and I see no problem with a party of four people playing the same class, but still each covering a different party role (in fact, I find it desirable).
My goal would be for people to feel like they need character A, B, and C, not class A, B, and C.
Because it isn't a solo game.
I'm not suggesting the game be a solo game at all. I'm suggesting a single class be able to do everything (and let me clarify this:) but not all at once.
You would still have the party "B.A." the party "Face," the "Hannibal," whatever. They just wouldn't have to be a Fighter, a Bard, and a...whatever. If each class could potentially fill any role, class choice would be mostly stylistic.
But the party roles would remain, so you'd still want/need other people.
Of course, about half of the games I've run over the past 20 years have involved only two players (and it is my preferred party size), so I don't want the resources spread that thin.
And based on reviews, you are in the minority with regards to Dragons Age II.
I am aware, but could never figure out why. I have a guess, but it will likely offend some ;)
|
|
And I am saying that Fighters can't heal or throw fireballs because they can't cast spells.
And the only way to fix that is to give them spells, at which point the cease to be Fighters and become something else.
And that something else is a fun concept, but it isn't a fighter.
Similarly there was a reason full Arcane Classes have bad BaB and restrictions on Armor.
Hybrid classes exist that can do all things, but making all classes hybrid classes creates a new problem without solving the old one.
And I am saying that Fighters can't heal or throw fireballs because they can't cast spells.
They don't need to heal or throw fireballs to contribute to all areas of the game, though. Do you really think that's what I'm suggesting?
Fighters already deal damage. They don't need to throw fireballs. They might need to be better at maneuvers and inflicting conditions, but that's arguable and not relevant. They should maybe heal naturally faster, or get some kind of surge of adrenaline that gives them temporary HP or something, but that's besides the point.
I don't want Fighters to have spells. I prefer playing non-casters, myself.
But when casters can cast charm spells, I see no reason non-casters can't have the option to take some kind of an ability that makes them extraordinarily (not supernaturally) charming.
When casters can cast invisibility, non-casters should have access to an ability that gives them some kind of edge in sneaking around that isn't supernaturally bending light around them.
For every Find the Path, there could be a masterful extraordinary tracking ability. It's that simple.
I do think certain high level magics (notably Teleporting long distances) need to leave class abilities (spells cast from spell slots), though, and only exist in the world via other means (some ancient teleport circles anyone can exploit with a ritual, some awesome sword that can cut a hole through space and open teleport rifts, a complicated ritual whose ingredients require a quest of their own to acquire, etc.), but for the most part, there's no reason you can't have extraordinary means to interact with the things casters use spells to interact with.
And the only way to fix that is to give them spells, at which point the cease to be Fighters and become something else.
I just don't think that's true. Provide a wider variety of out of combat abilities (whose selection doesn't interfere with combat ability selection) and reduce the scope of magical abilities slightly and you're solid.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Here's why I didn't like it:
1.) It shrank the world into a infinitesimally tiny dot in the boondocks of the world map you were able to traverse in the last game. Sequels are supposed to EXPAND the world, not CONTRACT it dammit.
2.) The combat changed from "strategic RPG" to "Party-based Dynasty Warriors".
3.) Most of the characters were unlikeable, and two of the characters from the first game that showed up (Anders and the Justice spirit from Awakening) BECAME unlikeable. Justice was never that much of an a%+%+~& before, and he took Anders' snark. WHY WOULD HE TAKE ANDERS' SNARK?
I did like the way they beefed up the Fighter and Rogue a bit (the dodge flip was a damn nice addition), I just didn't like the other changes.
2.) There's no such thing as "too balanced". There's "poorly balanced" (which can be either too many or too few balanced options) and "well balanced" but there is no "too balanced".
Well, I happen to think that the game is "too balanced" as well. There are numerous competing game designs here.
On the one hand, you could believe that the game should mimic classic fantasy where wizards and sorcerors can build cloud castles, can lay to waste nations.
On the the other hand, you can believe that all players should be "balanced". Should be able to participate in a cooperative endeavor.
Personally, I'm more interested in versimilitude to epic fantasy than I am to balance. So, to me, the current questions of balance is definitely "too much" balance.
Ars Magica, for example was a system which held that wizards were preeminent, and that no other class was more than a secondary character.
Rather than balance the classes - they balanced the game by suggesting that all players have primary and secondary characters, and that the players balance by splitting time fairly between primary and secondary characters.
And I am saying that Fighters can't heal or throw fireballs because they can't cast spells.
...And the only way to fix that is to give them spells,
Why? That is a seriously strange conclusion there is no reason that that is that case. So you need to give a thorough explanation. Fireballs are only a means to interacting with combat. Fighters already get that without spells. And if the heal skill wasn't retarded and fighters actually got skill points the difference between being a mundane healer and a non-mundane healer could simply be the amount of time it takes to heal. And that's fine.
Similarly there was a reason full Arcane Classes have bad BaB and restrictions on Armor.
There is also a reason they don't care. Infinitely expanding spell lists ARE a problem. But they aren't a problem because they let wizards interact with every aspect of the game. They are a problem because not only can he interact with every aspect of the game, he can choose HOW he interacts with each element and can interact with those elements in EVERYWAY. But being a character who CANNOT interact with MOST of the game is a bigger, more immediate problem.
On the one hand, you could believe that the game should mimic classic fantasy where wizards and sorcerors can build cloud castles, can lay to waste nations.
Honestly, name a source for that--because in my experience, stories where wizards and sorcerers build cloud castles and lay waste to nations, totally normal, non-magical guys (like Conan) come, shrug off their spells with their iron will and pure non-magical awesomeness, then kill them in the face.
I agree that casters should be better than commoners. Non-caster PCs should also be better than commoners.
And I'm serious--I've never seen any media (that wasn't based on D&D) in which there were non-magical characters that just had no chance at all facing a magical threat.
Personally, I'm more interested in versimilitude to epic fantasy than I am to balance.
Me too, that's why I want magic to be a crutch of the weak. ;)
Ars Magica, for example was a system which held that wizards were preeminent, and that no other class was more than a secondary character.
Rather than balance the classes - they balanced the game by suggesting that all players have primary and secondary characters, and that the players balance by splitting time fairly between primary and secondary characters.
If D&D 3rd/Pathfinder wrote somewhere that spellcasters were better than non-casters and that if you want to play a non-caster, you should really just play two characters so that one can be a caster and you can meaningfully participate, I'd be ok with that.
1.) It shrank the world into a infinitesimally tiny dot in the boondocks of the world map you were able to traverse in the last game. Sequels are supposed to EXPAND the world, not CONTRACT it dammit.
I didn't need the world expanded--I don't care about the world in general, if my story is only the size of one city. I rather liked the location and didn't mind the limits.
2.) The combat changed from "strategic RPG" to "Party-based Dynasty Warriors".
I know! It was much faster paced and I think more fun.
3.) Most of the characters were unlikeable, and two of the characters from the first game that showed up (Anders and the Justice spirit from Awakening) BECAME unlikeable. Justice was never that much of an a@%$#*$ before, and he took Anders' snark. WHY WOULD HE TAKE ANDERS' SNARK?
I totally disagree. First, Anders was not from the first game, he was from an expansion, so I never saw him before DA2. Second, I hated him and had no problem with that (I hated Leliana and Sten in DA1, too), but loved every other character. Varric was especially awesome--one of the best characters Bioware ever wrote (1. Tali until ME3 2. Garrus 3. Allistair 4. Varric). Merril and Isabella were very interesting (and had great voices) and Fenris was a badass. What characters did you hate other than Anders?
I did like the way they beefed up the Fighter and Rogue a bit (the dodge flip was a damn nice addition), I just didn't like the other changes.
I don't know, I guess I'm just weird. I think ME2 is the best Mass Effect, as well.
|
|
And I am saying that Fighters can't heal or throw fireballs because they can't cast spells.
...And the only way to fix that is to give them spells,
Why? That is a seriously strange conclusion there is no reason that that is that case. So you need to give a thorough explanation. Fireballs are only a means to interacting with combat. Fighters already get that without spells. And if the heal skill wasn't retarded and fighters actually got skill points the difference between being a mundane healer and a non-mundane healer could simply be the amount of time it takes to heal. And that's fine.
There is also a reason they don't care. Infinitely expanding spell lists ARE a problem. But they aren't a problem because they let wizards interact with every aspect of the game. They are a problem because not only can he interact with every aspect of the game, he can choose HOW he interacts with each element and can interact with those elements in EVERYWAY. But being a character who CANNOT interact with MOST of the game is a bigger, more immediate problem.
Similarly there was a reason full Arcane Classes have bad BaB and restrictions on Armor.
Making skills work functionally as spells is just giving them spells by other means. This is where the 4e analogy is accurate, as much of what occurs is placing the number outcomes in different visualization containers. I shot an arrow rather than a magical bolt, but it is 1d6 damage either way...
That is what most of use didn't like about the new system.
As to spell lists, the problem is partially the spells and partially the lax interpretation of those spells by GMs. You want the potential for worlds with cloud cities, but you also want that level of power to be rare because of how few are able to survive to reach that level, and how hard it is to stay there when you do.
There is nothing wrong with a great warrior needing the help of magic users to succeed, so long as the world also exists where Magic users need non-casters as well.