Community

chaosfang, that's an interesting concept: have feats be the "martial" spells. Since players like customization, you could still have some "class feats" at certain points in a class's progression, letting them choose between different trees of abilities (in 4E terms, these would be class feats, so a cleric could choose to improve upon their healing word, their channel divinity, or their at-will powers ...). Then martial characters would have feats to improve upon their combat abilities or even their skills. Wizards don't need to improve their skills, they can learn spider climb, polymorph, and charm person instead of climb, swim, diplomacy.

No one ever complained about spell casters having a lack of options in 2E.

Then, if we're going to use a daily balance metric (4 fights, X rounds per fight, for 4x rounds per day), we can balance things against each other. If the wizard gets a spell that deals 20 damage more than their at-wills, then a fighter could pick up a feat that gave 20/(4x) additional damage to all their attacks. But, additionally, what you're talking about is introducing more incomparables between the classes, which I am less familiar with.

Aug 19, 2012 -- 9:09PM, Caeric wrote:

Can't a guy just butt in like that? This is the internet, there are no manners here!

I don't care if this is the Internet.  Respect given is respect due, so to speak.

Aug 19, 2012 -- 9:09PM, Caeric wrote:

I am not saying that min/maxing should not exist, I meant min/maxing should not be a problem at the table in the first place.  For instance, 4E does have min/maxing, and it has various builds that are CLEARLY overpowered.  But compare the level of min/maxing in 4E to the min/maxing in 3E, and compare the min/maxing in 3E to the min/maxing of 2E and AD&D.

4th edition's potentials were restricted by a very cautious group of designers. Feats, features and items rarely gave you benefits at-will, and those benefits that were at-will were usually small. Every class operated on the same timetable, and very few abilities were themselves imaginative -- everything was very clearly codified. D&D Next seems to desire to make things less codified and restricted, with abilities that are more describing what the ability is in-universe than what its exact effect is. What I mean to say is that I don't think the designers can use 4th edition's method of balance in D&D Next, given their goals. It's a different system.

Except you can take inspiration from D&D 4E's design philosophy and intermingle it with pre-4E mechanics.  13th Age has shown that much, at least.

Contrary to what the naysayers claim, 4E is not "perfectly balanced" in the chess-like sort of way, although has the appearance of such due to how everyone is, as you said, working on the same timetable (which I consider as a plus by the way, because that stops the whiny low level wizard and the luggage-bearing high level fighter slippery slope discussions on imbalance).  Fact of the matter is, it is considered "perfectly balanced" because it is perfectly imbalanced: fighters are supposed to be masters of combat, but up until 4E has only maintained that title up to a certain level barring DM and system intervention (and 3E offered loopholes around those too); it was only in 4E that the claimed "sweet spot" of gameplay has been stretched from levels 6-9 to levels 5-20 (and is still playable even in the extremes)... wherein the fighter and the wizard can be found on the same battlefield, doing his own thing, without the DM having to go about making tweaks that weaken/negate the wizard and strengthen the fighter.  But no matter what the fighter does, unless he REALLY gimps his character build he can never hold a candle to what the wizard can do. In 4E.

So how can that work in a system that offers multiple resource management systems?  How can the at-will Fighter match up to the daily/Vancian Wizard?  Suggestions, based on existing D&D and D&D Next material, would include:
* Remove Tenser's Transformation forever (biggest offender in Wizard overlap with Fighter)
* Stoneskin should offer damage resistance based on base class hit die (to reduce overlap in tanking ability with Fighter)
* Add multi-round casting, especially for stuff that can overlap with other class features, or are primarily non-combat (but can be used in combat)
* Have the Fighter gain expertise dice at a faster rate (so he can be either a melee damage machine or a guile and cunning combatant, and either way he'd be a master of combat skill)
* Allow the Fighter access to a wider variety of combat superiority maneuvers, some of which may lower his stamina for one battle or one day, and simply assuming that the default option is the damage+, damage- and one other maneuver, rather than forcing the damage+ and damage- maneuvers to all Fighters

Just because the Fighter is at-will and the Vancian Wizard is daily doesn't mean that the Fighter should be restricted to only basic attack and a trinket or two, and certainly doesn't mean that the Wizard is eligible to unrestricted access to an entire vault of game breaking stuff.  There's a LOT of design space both can work in, and the system can be designed with perfect imbalance in mind.

Aug 19, 2012 -- 9:09PM, Caeric wrote:

Human ingenuity will always be there, there's no question about it.  The problem is: how far SHOULD human ingenuity go in relation to a game that is designed to have him cooperate with other humans?  What should each element do and how should each element interact, in such a way that even in the presence of imbalance, it would still be acceptable?

A good question. Maybe the solution could be in an emphasis on cooperative options? The best options being things that require you to synergize with your friends? That way no single person steals the show because that one person needs help to use his abilities to the max.

Which is almost exactly how D&D 4E operated: you could certainly make a variety of characters whose builds are completely selfish, yet the most powerful parties resulted not from individuals who just so happened to be in the same group, but from a group that works as a single, cohesive unit.  Even though the resource delivery system is admittedly bland, the system IS designed in such a way that cooperative options *are* the better choice.

Compare:
* Combat Superiority (party beneficial as it increases opportunity attack accuracy and negates movement) vs. Combat Agility (considered inferior because it allows enemies to slip past you and the system is designed so that you don't really get to benefit much from going solo)
* Aegis of Shielding (party beneficial as it nullifies an enemy's effectiveness against the party) vs. any other Aegis (all considered inferior because they are not party beneficial)

D&D has always provided options for group synchronization, albeit mostly in the form of "Mass X" spells (Mass Cure Light Wounds, Mass Bear's Endurance, etc.)... which means group synchronization was only the Cleric's (or Druid's) job.  There was no "Mass Stoneskin", there was no "Mass Invisibility" (just Invisibility Sphere, which seemed to be designed with real time -- as opposed to turn-based -- in mind), Mass Fly sure, but how about "Mass Protection from Arrows"? (Ragnarok Online had this covered, with an Acolyte spell that rendered all ranged attacks useless [although sometimes to the detriment of the party]).  And how about the pure warriors and part-casting warriors?  There was nothing party-oriented towards the Fighter, and the Rogue was only party-oriented by the fact that he was the only guy with access to skills that allowed him to deal with the dangerous traps and what not... which effectively made him party-oriented by accident (as he is obviously the most selfish of the group, almost by design).

Like you said yourself, the solution is to provide emphasis on cooperative options.  That is a design framework that is certainly feasible even in the Linear Fighter/Quadratic Wizard setup (although the Exponential Cleric or Druid has to be stopped, because the Quadratic Wizard was tame compared to these monsters of game design [the "I'm too weak" is no longer a valid excuse post-0E]).

Aug 19, 2012 -- 9:09PM, Caeric wrote:

Put into D&D perspective: how would you be able to put in a Vancian Wizard, a Linear Fighter, a Rogue, a Druid, and a Cleric all together on the same table and not have anyone complain about imbalance?  The answer: make it so that there is no real way to determine which is better than what on an objective basis.

Basically, not balancing them at all. Not a bad thing, just saying. Balance is the answer to "how can a game guarantee that everyone playing has fun?" The best answer so far objectively. Your answer (being able to obfuscate comparitive merits) might serve well too, if it was done well.

Not exactly not balancing them at all per se, just not trying to balance them so hard that they look and feel exactly the same (because we have chess for that).

Let's see: if you compare a Wizard casting a spell that knocks a Gelatinous Cube prone and a Fighter attempting -- and auto-failing -- to trip a Gelatinous Cube, you can automatically compare the two because you have two prone-delivering systems [mundane vs. magic] and one is clearly inferior to the other, regardless of the limits on use (the system forces the player to consider resting to recover lost spells, and the DM to consider rather artificial means to discourage or prevent resting).  But if you compare a Wizard casting a spell that causes the Gelatinous Cube and everyone between the caster and the Gelatinous Cube to be buffeted away a couple of feet and possibly knocked prone, and a Fighter being able to damage and weaken, confuse or stun the Gelatinous Cube, you simply cannot compare the two actions, because they are two completely different things.

Only then can balance be kicked on to the curb.

It's a more difficult path to tread, but the reward of being able to solve a LOT of the mechanical issues of D&D without having to resort to just one resource delivery system should be ample enough reward.

Aug 19, 2012 -- 9:09PM, Caeric wrote:

EDIT: Before I forget, I'd like to mention that, in spite of the brokenness potential of 13th Age in terms of mechanics, I love how the system actually encourages DMs and players to work together in conceptualizing and building characters, campaigns and stories.  So that way, even if there was power creep in the mechanical sense, most of the power creep seen in play would be more in the story-based sense -- additional backers, henchmen/armies, sentient magical items, world influence etc. etc. etc. (you know, stuff that actually make TRPGs better than CRPGs and the like).  That Fighter that is basic attack only?  He might be a warrior of the king, or even a usurper of the crown, and his story would develop in such a way that nobody would really care if he can't cast Rope Trick or what not.

That's a good idea. I think I've heard in the past that Fighters in some edition would get castles after a certain level. Maybe that could return? I can imagine that the game might offer you the option, at level x, of choosing something like a 4th edition daily power for the Fighter, or choosing to have a keep full of servants. Some people would scoff at the keep, saying that it either doesn't fit their character or it doesn't give any practical benefit. Some would scoff at the power saying that it doesn't fit the class or that a keep would give the character the influence it needs to make a greater impact on the same scale that the party wizard does. Rough idea, obviously, but an idea.

Also, I rather like the idea of not giving casters feats, though I fear that a player that actually likes playing casters might not feel the same way. It sounds like it'd be a net loss for those that like to play wizards. But I suppose given what wizards have had, a net loss is necessary.

Wizards have flexible feats in the form of spells.  Fighters have constantly beneficial spells in the form of class features and feats.  It's a decent trade-off really.

I would personally not recommend a return to "all Fighters become Lords of their land", if only because it quickly stales.  Becoming a sovereign leader should be a story reward, not a rules expectation.

Besides, the Vikings have always found pride in battle because they believe that death on the battlefield assures them a place in Valhalla, accompanied by the beautiful and powerful Valkyries.  Why shouldn't a warrior so reknowned in legendary battle prowess gain the attention of a God of War and granted extraordinary abilities (be it from items or divine blessings) or an assured spot as exarch or demigod of battle (like the Red Knight)?