|
1 year ago ::
Mar 29, 2012 - 7:28AM
#1
|
|
|
One post in discussion on Sneak Attack/Backstab brought up the concept of the Three Pillars --exploration, interaction, and combat-- and how that relates to themes, classes, and builds. To wit, imagine a rogue class where, by maximizing combat options you are an "assassin", by maximizing exploration options you are a "thief", and by maximizing interaction options you are a "bard". I guess the design questions are:
- How much is progression in each pillar mutually exclusive versus automatic progression across the board? That is to say, at each level to what extent do I automatically get better at everything I already know how to do, and how often do I get extras for each pillar?
- Are the progressions fixed for each build, or can I pick and choose options for each pillar? i.e. If I choose "bard", how many options do I get per level? (I suspect the answer to this is, "It depends on which modules you want to use.")
- How do these "three pillars of the game" interact with the "three pillars of characters" -- class, theme, and race? (e.g. Is "class" mostly combat options and "theme" mostly interaction options, with exploration options spread throughout?)
Grid-filling some futher examples
Show
- Fighter + combat = "weaponmaster" or "slayer"
- Fighter + exploration = "ranger"
- Fighter + interaction = "warlord"
- Cleric + combat = "paladin" or "warpriest" or "healer"
- Cleric + exploration = "undead hunter" or "tomb raider"
- Cleric + interaction = "evangelist"
- Wizard + combat = "evoker" or "sorcerer" or "warlock"
- Wizard + exploration = "transmuter"
- Wizard + interaction = "enchanter"
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 29, 2012 - 7:55AM
#2
|
Date Joined:
Aug 19, 2007
|
First, I think three pillars are reductive. There is at least a fourth pillar: investigation, as in, acquiring information. And there is a fifth pillar IMO that is travel. Second, see here about my opinion on having to choose between the pillars. They were talking about a bard that was 70% combat / 30% interaction vs a fighter that was 100% combat. I hate that concept to hell and back. I want both to be 100% combat / 100% exploration / 100% socialization. In different ways, of course: I don't want a fighter that talks as well as a bard. All in all, I would be ok with a fighter that was 110% combat / 90% socialization too, as long as the difference was minimal.
Are you interested in an online 4E game on Sunday? Contact me with a PM! Spoiler:
Show
Reflavoring: the change of flavor without changing any mechanical part of the game, no matter how small, in order to fit the mechanics to an otherwise unsupported concept.
Retexturing: the change of flavor (with at most minor mechanical adaptations) in order to effortlessly create support for a concept without inventing anything new.
Houseruling: the change, either minor or major, of the mechanics in order to better reflect a certain aspect of the game, including adapting the rules to fit an otherwise unsupported concept.
Homebrewing: the complete invention of something new that fits within the system in order to reflect an unsupported concept. Ideas for 5ESpoiler:
Show
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 29, 2012 - 8:27AM
#3
|
Date Joined:
Aug 11, 2006
|
How much is progression in each pillar mutually exclusive versus automatic progression across the board? That is to say, at each level to what extent do I automatically get better at everything I already know how to do, and how often do I get extras for each pillar?
In any well-designed system, progression in each pillar is not mutually exclusive and in fact the opposite is true. A character's level is designed to be a measure of what kinds of challenges they can face in all three pillars and should be treated as such. As Mormegil says, all classes should be 100% combat/100% exploration/100% socialization, not meaning they need to have identical abilities to one another but that they need to have abilities of equal variety and power for each pillar. Are the progressions fixed for each build, or can I pick and choose options for each pillar? i.e. If I choose "bard", how many options do I get per level? (I suspect the answer to this is, "It depends on which modules you want to use.")
Any class should be given a reasonably comparable number of options at each decision point, on each pillar. These options do not need to be identical in effects, but they need to be identical in availability.
How do these "three pillars of the game" interact with the "three pillars of characters" -- class, theme, and race? (e.g. Is "class" mostly combat options and "theme" mostly interaction options, with exploration options spread throughout?)
Class is all three to a large degree. My ideal system grants options for combat abilities based on class and options for exploration and social abilities based on power source: wizards, bards and swordmages get utility spells, and at a similar if not identical rate fighters, rogues, and warlords get a range of comparable utility exploits.
Grid-filling
This to my mind is the exact opposite of how it should be gone about. By focusing classes heavily on a specific pillar to the exclusion of the other two, you effectively say "you're only really meant to work with this third of the game".
In my current 4E game I play a warforged fighter. It's a fun character and he has an interesting story arc, but because the fighter class is particularly strong on the combat pillar and weak on the other two, a lot of the time he doesn't have much he can actually do to contribute to the party when it's not time to fight. In combat he routinely pulls MVP status, but out of combat there's really not a lot he can do. This has always been the problem with the fighter class in particular, and it's something that needs to go.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 29, 2012 - 8:32AM
#4
|
|
|
I hope they are not exclusive. I've played in campaigns that were combat heavy but I was able to make a character that held his own and still had some resources spent on exploration and social.
I hope the game is designed that any of the three pillars can't be dismissed. I played along side a PC that was a combat juggernaut but roleplayed like he was the prince of the court - there was no need to spend resources on social aspect because the game didn't require it. Same goes for exploration, if their are no traps and every location can be walked to near or far, then there is no exploration.
The game works best when all three hit at the same time. When your exploring during a fight and still roleplaying your character. If the choices are exclusive I want to see genuine issues with focusing on combat.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 29, 2012 - 8:40AM
#5
|
|
|
I want all classes to have the flexibility for 100%/100%/100% builds, but also the flexibility to change that as the player desires. Which means that player could sacrifice in one area in order to gain in another. There should be some amount of regulation and limitation on that, though, but not much.
Somnia, the Evanescent Plane -- A 3-set Block
Show
Theora, A World of Modern Science
Show
Build Around This
Show
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 29, 2012 - 11:56AM
#6
|
|
|
There's a big difference between forced specialization and optional specialization. I don't mind if a character has a stronger focus on battle than on interaction, but everyone should get something by default.
Even if its just giving the fighter an ability to drop down a "set up" intimidate or diplomacy for the bard's follow through, or giving the wizard a spell or two which enhances the rogue's silver tongue. Everyone needs to be able to contribute something, and make that something useful in a way where its not replaced by anyone else.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 31, 2012 - 4:12PM
#7
|
Date Joined:
Apr 23, 2009
|
First, I think three pillars are reductive. There is at least a fourth pillar: investigation, as in, acquiring information. And there is a fifth pillar IMO that is travel.
Second, see here about my opinion on having to choose between the pillars. They were talking about a bard that was 70% combat / 30% interaction vs a fighter that was 100% combat. I hate that concept to hell and back. I want both to be 100% combat / 100% exploration / 100% socialization. In different ways, of course: I don't want a fighter that talks as well as a bard. All in all, I would be ok with a fighter that was 110% combat / 90% socialization too, as long as the difference was minimal.
I think I agree with this view. I definitely do not need characters to be that useful in every situation. I do want them to be useful within each pillar.
So in socialization I'm ok if the rogue can gather info and the cleric is the diplomat. I think I'm most concerned that combatants all be pretty darn effective. Not in every combat but on average.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 01, 2012 - 1:03PM
#8
|
|
|
First, I think three pillars are reductive. There is at least a fourth pillar: investigation, as in, acquiring information. And there is a fifth pillar IMO that is travel.
I would think that information gathering is a rather integral part of Interaction as well as Exploration. After all, much of a PC's interaction and exploration motivations are to gain more information. Not to simply start songs in a tavern or pick up some pretty shinies.
I agree fully that any given PC should be able to put a good showing in all three pillars however. Literature and media regularly treat us to rough and tumble warriors who can also organize a banquet while inspiring an army. I fondly recall a powerful wizard in Dragonlance with the physique of an NFL linebacker. 4e's trouble with these things came both in the classes that perhaps too narrowly defined what one could and could not do, but also from the method of stat selection too.
Random rolling as the standard once opened the door to that wide variety of PC types. The brute statesman, the intelligent but foolish wizard, the incredibly strong but exceedingly frail warrior. Sadly they also brought us stat lines that featured four 8's a six and a twelve. Point values let us better control those stat lines, but at the cost of falling prey to optimization fever.
"You can't be a good X unless your primary stat is at least 18 at first level!"
Maybe there is a way to move our general thinking away from that concept, maybe not. Some of the charm of older editions however was indeed that you could have a strength of 16 or even 14 and still call yourself an 'effective' fighter. If we can embrace a wider acceptable stat variety for each class I think it will go a long way to making three-pillar characters possible.
To err is human. To fail a Fear save is unforgivable! 
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 01, 2012 - 1:30PM
#9
|
- Forum Guide
- Hero Craftsman Gold Medalist
- Master Dungeon Master
Date Joined:
Jun 23, 2005
|
I would think that information gathering is a rather integral part of Interaction as well as Exploration.
It's integral to all the pillars. That's why I call it one of the three "Pilasters" of D&D.
Exploration means puzzling (int), climbing (str), searching (wis), and sneaking (dex).
Socializing means convincing (cha), observing (wis), and outfoxing (int)
Problem 1: Left Behind. The problem with socialization is that it gives the physical characters little to do. The problem with exploration is that it gives the charismatic character little to do.
Problem 2: Serial Spotlight. The second problem with each of these pillars is that it rarely involves people working in concert. Generally only one person is talking to the Duke at a time. Only one person is picking a lock.
I don't know the solution, sadly. I'm curious what they do.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 02, 2012 - 7:02AM
#10
|
Date Joined:
Aug 19, 2007
|
First, I think three pillars are reductive. There is at least a fourth pillar: investigation, as in, acquiring information. And there is a fifth pillar IMO that is travel.
I would think that information gathering is a rather integral part of Interaction as well as Exploration. After all, much of a PC's interaction and exploration motivations are to gain more information. Not to simply start songs in a tavern or pick up some pretty shinies.
Yes, but getting information is in a way a different part of the game. You can get information in various ways that don't include socialization nor exploration, first of all divinations. Also paying for information, asking sages or contacts, going around in taverns and singing your bard songs all night (this doesn't really count as Socialization, as I don't think any DM will ever ask his character to socialize with tons of strangers and sing songs all night: it's a Gather Information / Streetwise roll).
I agree fully that any given PC should be able to put a good showing in all three pillars however. Literature and media regularly treat us to rough and tumble warriors who can also organize a banquet while inspiring an army. I fondly recall a powerful wizard in Dragonlance with the physique of an NFL linebacker. 4e's trouble with these things came both in the classes that perhaps too narrowly defined what one could and could not do, but also from the method of stat selection too.
Random rolling as the standard once opened the door to that wide variety of PC types. The brute statesman, the intelligent but foolish wizard, the incredibly strong but exceedingly frail warrior. Sadly they also brought us stat lines that featured four 8's a six and a twelve. Point values let us better control those stat lines, but at the cost of falling prey to optimization fever.
"You can't be a good X unless your primary stat is at least 18 at first level!"
Maybe there is a way to move our general thinking away from that concept, maybe not. Some of the charm of older editions however was indeed that you could have a strength of 16 or even 14 and still call yourself an 'effective' fighter. If we can embrace a wider acceptable stat variety for each class I think it will go a long way to making three-pillar characters possible.
Yes. Detatch ability scores from combat. It will go a long way in helping the game.
Are you interested in an online 4E game on Sunday? Contact me with a PM! Spoiler:
Show
Reflavoring: the change of flavor without changing any mechanical part of the game, no matter how small, in order to fit the mechanics to an otherwise unsupported concept.
Retexturing: the change of flavor (with at most minor mechanical adaptations) in order to effortlessly create support for a concept without inventing anything new.
Houseruling: the change, either minor or major, of the mechanics in order to better reflect a certain aspect of the game, including adapting the rules to fit an otherwise unsupported concept.
Homebrewing: the complete invention of something new that fits within the system in order to reflect an unsupported concept. Ideas for 5ESpoiler:
Show
|
|
|
