|
5 months ago ::
Dec 30, 2012 - 7:45AM
#11
|
Date Joined:
Dec 10, 2010
|
Balance is "mostly" around Combat because combat rules is the only part of D&D most groups agree on.
Once you get to noncombat, everything goes crazy with Full Narritive Never Rolls groups, to Charisma Check Mind control groups, to touchy-feely traps, to Disable Traps rolls, to "Since my fighter is a knight, I should get a bonus" groups.
But sneaking in to lairs, fooling monsters or npc`s, disableing or making traps, opening locks or picking pockets, rituals, turning into anoimals, shapeshifting, making items and many other things are all very tangible things you can do outside of combat! IMO that should all count for something! The weak and fish-out-of-water character on an adventuer is an appealing archetype to many players, just see Bilbo as an example! I agree with ardekrag that there should or could be combat oriented classes on non-combat oriented classes, as long as you have some areas you excel at.
But that's not rules.
When I DM conversations, I make the players roll.
Some DMs don't.
Some DMs use complex skill systems or roll challenges.
You can't balance a PC around being charming with one noncombat rule because not every group uses that rule.
There are groups out that don't even roll to disarm traps. You have to narrate correctly how you disarm traps.
How do you balance narration with numbers? You can't.
I get what you are saying! But the things I mentioned are not just narration, it is what some classes are able to do that makes them really powerfull, but not in a combat sense. For instanse the druids ability to turn into an animal can extremely useful in many situations! The ability to create magic items or cast rituals. Utility powers and the like, how do you balance that? They managed to put a level on items like bag of holding and neverending rations, so they must be able to balance other things than combat too! Some characters can be useful in combat and others can be useful outside of combat, can`t that make sense and balance things out?
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Dec 30, 2012 - 7:51AM
#12
|
|
|
But sneaking in to lairs, fooling monsters or npc`s, disableing or making traps, opening locks or picking pockets, rituals, turning into anoimals, shapeshifting, making items and many other things are all very tangible things you can do outside of combat! IMO that should all count for something!
They do, at least in the sense that there are rules for that. 4e's errata'd Stealth rules are quite good for this sort of thing. (They make sneaking around hard, unless you create a distraction.)
The weak and fish-out-of-water character on an adventuer is an appealing archetype to many players, just see Bilbo as an example! I agree with ardekrag that there should or could be combat oriented classes on non-combat oriented classes, as long as you have some areas you excel at.
That type of character shouldn't be supported by D&D. You get a character who basically hides in a corner when combat breaks out. That's not cool. Just because it happened in a good story doesn't mean it should be happening in D&D. (Gandalf is almost an ur-example of a bad DMPC.)
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Dec 30, 2012 - 8:02AM
#13
|
Date Joined:
Dec 10, 2010
|
That type of character shouldn't be supported by D&D. You get a character who basically hides in a corner when combat breaks out. That's not cool. Just because it happened in a good story doesn't mean it should be happening in D&D. (Gandalf is almost an ur-example of a bad DMPC.)
They supported that character before! In 2nd ed I stood at a distance and shot enemies with my sling or used sneak attack on occasion, but I was by no means a combatant and I was damn happy for having the fighter in my group when a combat broke out! He was damn happy to have me in other situations! It balanced out! It sucks if combat is all you ever do and they last forever of course, but does it have to be that way?..
I`m not saying combat balance is a bad thing, but I personaly like another form of game-balance and would like to see the game explore other options.
I know what works in other medias of story telling won`t always work in a game, I have a bchelor degree in animation and I made both short animations, video games and comics and studied story and character development in my education. I believe that type character may work in dnd if it has something to do and is useful outside of combat, an area it is good at, if the game is about something else than combat aswel!
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Dec 30, 2012 - 8:10AM
#14
|
Date Joined:
Aug 22, 2007
|
Balance is "mostly" around Combat because combat rules is the only part of D&D most groups agree on.
Once you get to noncombat, everything goes crazy with Full Narritive Never Rolls groups, to Charisma Check Mind control groups, to touchy-feely traps, to Disable Traps rolls, to "Since my fighter is a knight, I should get a bonus" groups.
But sneaking in to lairs, fooling monsters or npc`s, disableing or making traps, opening locks or picking pockets, rituals, turning into anoimals, shapeshifting, making items and many other things are all very tangible things you can do outside of combat! IMO that should all count for something! The weak and fish-out-of-water character on an adventuer is an appealing archetype to many players, just see Bilbo as an example! I agree with ardekrag that there should or could be combat oriented classes on non-combat oriented classes, as long as you have some areas you excel at.
But that's not rules.
When I DM conversations, I make the players roll.
Some DMs don't.
Some DMs use complex skill systems or roll challenges.
You can't balance a PC around being charming with one noncombat rule because not every group uses that rule.
There are groups out that don't even roll to disarm traps. You have to narrate correctly how you disarm traps.
How do you balance narration with numbers? You can't.
I get what you are saying! But the things I mentioned are not just narration, it is what some classes are able to do that makes them really powerfull, but not in a combat sense. For instanse the druids ability to turn into an animal can extremely useful in many situations! The ability to create magic items or cast rituals. Utility powers and the like, how do you balance that? They managed to put a level on items like bag of holding and neverending rations, so they must be able to balance other things than combat too! Some characters can be useful in combat and others can be useful outside of combat, can`t that make sense and balance things out?
Like I said before. It is hard to balance aspects of the game that are not guaranteed to be used in game with eah other. It is hard to balance a sneak with a warrior in a game with no stealth or combat (like a royal court scene). In the past, what was done is the weakening of all aspects of the game so that the PCs good at something was not too far from the weaker. A high Cha PC or a PC with enchantments wasn't that much better than a low Cha PC.
The more game styles, the harder balance is.
Orzel, Halfelven son of Zel, Mystic Ranger, Bane to Dragons, Death to Undeath, Killer of Abyssals, King of the Wilds.
Constitution Based Class for Next!
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Dec 30, 2012 - 8:19AM
#15
|
Date Joined:
Aug 13, 2004
|
I don't understand. If you want a non-combattant, just play a balanced class without using its combat abilites.
You just have to warn the DM to allow him to balance combat encounters against one less adventurer.
Where is the problem ?
You solution is to not allow ones who need balance to play some classes.
Balance allows you to play any type of characters as non-combattant. Nothing forces you to use all the abilities of a character.
Rogues in 2nd editions didn't have more out of combat options as 3rd and 4th editions.
The last editions perfectly allowed to play a rogue like a 2nd edition thief.
"They are making it clear that when modern design and common sense come into conflict with tradition, tradition wins." - thecasualoblivion
"Vancian isn't broken, you just have to set your game to the wizard's clock!" - Oxybe
"In many ways, making a new edition of D&D is alot like trying to sell a car to the Amish." - Dwarfslayer
"Encounters are the heart of the AD&D game" - PHB AD&D 2nd edition.
"you shouldn't even bother trying to become like me." - Gary Gygax (Elfcrusher confirmed)
"Feel free to claim I said anything you like. How's someone going to call you out on it? Are they going to be all like, 'I know all of the things that Gary said, and that's not one of them?'"
- Gary Gygax
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Dec 30, 2012 - 8:20AM
#16
|
Date Joined:
Dec 10, 2010
|
Like I said before. It is hard to balance aspects of the game that are not guaranteed to be used in game with eah other. It is hard to balance a sneak with a warrior in a game with no stealth or combat (like a royal court scene). In the past, what was done is the weakening of all aspects of the game so that the PCs good at something was not too far from the weaker. A high Cha PC or a PC with enchantments wasn't that much better than a low Cha PC.
The more game styles, the harder balance is.
They have balanced or at least put levels on both utility powers and magic items that are pretty much flavour only, so it should be possible! I`m not talking about ability scores or rp, I`m talking about things a character can do, like turning into animals, turning invisible, flying maybe, charm npc`s with a speach or song, make traps, open locks and pick pockets, make magic items... Utility like powers or abilities.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Dec 30, 2012 - 8:26AM
#17
|
Date Joined:
Sep 20, 2004
|
I actually don't think things should be balanced all around combat. One of the best balanced fantasy RPGs I have played is WFRPG 3e. It is not balanced around combat at all. But, every character will be useful, and everyone can be built within a certain degree of effectiveness at any area of the game if you so choose.
I don't need all classes in D&DN to be equally effective at combat. But, I don't have a tolerance for the drastic levels of deviation found in 2e. I won't ever play another D&D game with something like the 2e thief. That being said, if a rogue gets out of combat powers that a fighter doesn't get, I expect it to pay for those powers with some degree of combat affectivity, because balance is not JUST about combat. Making it all about combat was 4e’s mistake, and as a result the game was horribly imbalanced at anything other than combat (and was not balanced any better in combat than WFRPG 3e).
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Dec 30, 2012 - 8:32AM
#18
|
Date Joined:
Jan 18, 2010
|
RM is a decently balanced game, I think. But the mechanics are different than D&D.
I very rarely play D&D anymore, and most certainly have given up on DMing, so I know very little about 4th edition or its facade of balance.
"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse."- John Stuart Mill
Old Man of the House of Trolls
Resident Hater
God of Anger and Hatred.
Mini Hate Machine
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Dec 30, 2012 - 8:40AM
#19
|
|
|
Balance is "mostly" around Combat because combat rules is the only part of D&D most groups agree on.
Once you get to noncombat, everything goes crazy with Full Narritive Never Rolls groups, to Charisma Check Mind control groups, to touchy-feely traps, to Disable Traps rolls, to "Since my fighter is a knight, I should get a bonus" groups.
But sneaking in to lairs, fooling monsters or npc`s, disableing or making traps, opening locks or picking pockets, rituals, turning into anoimals, shapeshifting, making items and many other things are all very tangible things you can do outside of combat! IMO that should all count for something! The weak and fish-out-of-water character on an adventuer is an appealing archetype to many players, just see Bilbo as an example! I agree with ardekrag that there should or could be combat oriented classes on non-combat oriented classes, as long as you have some areas you excel at.
Then such a person can choose to gimp his character that way. The game itself needs to be balanced to be playable; you shouldn't automatically be bad at something simply because of a race or class choice. Such things should happen because the player wants it, not because the system demands it.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Dec 30, 2012 - 8:46AM
#20
|
Date Joined:
Jul 18, 2007
|
That type of character shouldn't be supported by D&D. You get a character who basically hides in a corner when combat breaks out. That's not cool.
So, I guess I'm the only one who had players run Apostles of Peace effectively in combat-oriented campaigns?
|
|
|
