|
8 months ago ::
Oct 03, 2012 - 3:52AM
#11
|
- Forum Guide
- Hero Craftsman Gold Medalist
- Master Dungeon Master
Date Joined:
Jun 23, 2005
|
@slappylamer: I use the same standard as Hocus
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 03, 2012 - 4:21AM
#12
|
Date Joined:
Aug 22, 2007
|
At one time, as an exercise spawned of boredom and suggestion, I attempted to make a very rules lite RPG that made every class contain a feature that enhanced them in each pillar of the RPG. They were no way "equal" in each pillar but each class had something one their sheets that could be pointed to and apply to 80% of the situations. Like the soldier had a damage bonus to break locks, doors, and chests but the thief's Lockpicking Skill, the sorcerer's Portal, and wizard's Open Lock spell were easier to use.
Considering it was rules light and very dungeon crawly, it wasn't so hard to do.
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!
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 03, 2012 - 4:31AM
#13
|
|
|
Speaking generically across editions, one thing about the interaction and exploration pillars is that they're things for which the floor is intrinsically higher. Consider an ordinary non-adventurer with no adventuring skills whatsoever. She's not proficient with any weapons, she has no special features to speak of, and her stats are all in the nine to eleven range. Nevertheless, simply by having a pulse, she can still look around, make a map, climb up knotted ropes or over some fences, carry a torch, look for suspicious things, follow footprints in the snow and a variety of other exploration tasks. She can succeed at many of these things pretty reliably too. She's a total non-adventurer, but is able to contribute significantly to exploration. Similarly, she can attempt to persuade, threaten, charm or bluff a creature. She can attempt to communicate simple concepts to creatures that don't share a language. She can negotiate. She can't do any of these things as well as a level ten bard or mind control her way out of having to do any of them like a level one wizard, but she can still contribute to interaction. She can contribute to interaction and exploration scenarios, even higher-level ones - particularly interaction.
What she can't contribute to is combat in a meaningful way. Contributing to exploration or interaction just requires being a warm body, although other benefits help. Contributing to combat requires something in the vein of special class features that allow you to do that. D&D knows this, which is why the majority of the abilities for the majority of the classes across editions are combat abilities. (Also, combat abilities are easier to design lots of that are meaningfully different.) Like, a 3.5 fighter can sometimes contribute to the exploration or interaction pillars despite having no class features that support doing so, because being a person is enough. A class that got the equivalent of what the fighter got, but for combat (like the commoner, although at least the commoner gets proficiency with one simple weapon and has a d4 hit die instead of just, like, zero hit points, and it can flank and stuff) would not be able to provide much in combat at all.
Dwarves invented beer so they could toast to their axes. Dwarves invented axes to kill people and take their beer.
"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
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 03, 2012 - 4:49AM
#14
|
Date Joined:
May 24, 2012
|
Well with the exception of the true casters do any of the classes influence the social or exploration side of things directly?
I mean it seems to me that background is taking over the social-exploration angle, and that seems like a good idea, keep the classes roughly balanced in combat, and then let backgrounds worry about being social and exploration platforms.
+ 1
That's right!
No more vancian.
No "edition war" for me, thank'you.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 03, 2012 - 5:09AM
#15
|
Date Joined:
Oct 21, 2008
|
I thik that the numbers presented are pretty much spot on. (you cant be perfect on this cause you cant predict what your player will opt to use but...)
As for the wizard (caster) exploration/social abilities I think it all depends on the ritual system that we will have in the end. How easy it will be to use, how much the gp value will limit its use etc.
Forgetting rituals for a moment, if a caster chooses to use his spell points/slot for interaction/exploration that will be one spell they wont use in combat.
Now if we go make invisibilty or fly (spells useful to both combat and exploration/interaction) an encounter power Im not sure how we can balance that, perhaps we have to let the designers present it to us before I can have an opinion to that.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 03, 2012 - 5:22AM
#16
|
Date Joined:
Jun 21, 2012
|
I thik that the numbers presented are pretty much spot on. (you cant be perfect on this cause you cant predict what your player will opt to use but...)
As for the wizard (caster) exploration/social abilities I think it all depends on the ritual system that we will have in the end. How easy it will be to use, how much the gp value will limit its use etc.
Forgetting rituals for a moment, if a caster chooses to use his spell points/slot for interaction/exploration that will be one spell they wont use in combat.
Now if we go make invisibilty or fly (spells useful to both combat and exploration/interaction) an encounter power Im not sure how we can balance that, perhaps we have to let the designers present it to us before I can have an opinion to that.
heh that's pretty much the mage curse, isn't it? If Red Mage casts a healing spell to save himself he will lose one of his daily allotment, which will make him less versatile!
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 03, 2012 - 5:43AM
#17
|
Date Joined:
Oct 21, 2008
|
Yup, thats how it should be imo kadim  And let me add something to lesp's good point. We are sometimes used to appraise exploration/interaction with our skill lists and modifiers, but thats not always the case in dnd. Just because we have the duke negotiation with our skill list on hand that doesnt mean other parameters wont play a part of it as well. What if the duke was a great general of his time? Wouldn't it make more sense to hear the advice of the fighter/warlord more that that of the wizard or rogue? How many troops are needed to defend the pass? what's the most defensible position? What if he were pious? Wouldnt the cleric's words resonate more strongly in his mind than the rest of the group? You know the old circumstance modifiers. Not every negotiation needs to be the same. Just more food for thought.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 03, 2012 - 5:33PM
#18
|
Date Joined:
Sep 25, 2009
|
rampant/mat.shogun: While I agree in theory, I think Next has thus far failed to stick to that ideal. I love that they divorced skills from classes, it's always been "let's ram our idea of a character archetype down everyone's throats for no other reason than that we can." But backgrounds haven't taken up the whole burden of the other two pillars, and while I'm not convinced they should or must, this has left classes woefully unbalanced in the combat pillar. The rogue, for instance, has clearly traded combat effectiveness for a second background and skill mastery - in other words, for more exploration/interaction perks. He gets less armor, hit points, attack, and damage than the fighter (not damage if he can get sneak attack, but that requires an action to set up advantage AND they're talking about letting people trade out sneak attack, possibly for even more exploration/interaction perks). Perhaps more to the point he has fewer combat options than anyone else in combat, making him relatively boring when that pillar comes to the fore, but relatively more interesting in other pillars because he is better at more things and is therefore the smart choice for point man on more obstacles. Lesp: I disagree completely. First of all, I believe your first paragraph is incorrect, but I'll move on to your broader point anyway (if you want a full explanation, here) Spoiler:
Show
Sure, someone with no good stats and no skills can participate in exploration and interaction. She can follow footprints in the snow, but not as reliably as the character with wisdom or training. She can climb a knotted rope, but if only one person needs to climb than the party is better off sending someone else and if everyone needs to climb than the party would actually be better off without her. She can charm, intimidate, or bluff, but not as reliably as someone with charisma or training. In point of fact, even without proficiency (which, by the way, is a pointless exercise since every PC ever has proficiency in something), she can also swing a weapon. Granted, not as reliably as someone with good stats and training. But the truth is she can contribute MORE to combat, because in combat a party of adventurers plus a useless commoner can do more than a party of adventurers without the useless commoners - even if only a small amount more and only in those encounters where she gets lucky. In exploration or interaction, there will always be someone else better suited to the task, and the party will always be better off having that person make the roll while the boring commoner sits in the corner and hopes nobody notices her. There's a small exception when the task is such that everyone gets exactly one crack at it, she rolls exceptionally well, and her more skilled compatriots roll exceptionally badly (e.g., a perception check, unless you're looking for a trap and it's 3.x), but that's one small chunk of exploration, an even smaller chunk of interaction (untrained knowledge checks), and requires a large chunk of luck even when the right situation arises. First, I take your broader point to be that one does not need character features (be they class, background, or specialty) to make at least occassional contributions to the non-combat pillars. This is more or less true, although I would argue that you don't need character features to contribute to combat either. If we had the entirety of the exploration/interaction pillars rest on the attribute check system, all classes would have more or less equal amounts to contribute to those two pillars. That would be a perfectly fine, rules light system. In the right group, I would love to play that system. The issue is that they don't. Some classes get more or better skills than others (rogues, again), some classes get cool spells that let them do things other people can't no matter how well they roll (spellcasters). Those classes inevitably get more spotlight time, they contribute more, they feel more needed, than the classes that don't (fighters). If anyone is going to get cool extra swag in these pillars, than everyone should get cool extra swag. Note: the cool extra swag everyone else gets should not be the same cool extra swag. It needn't work the same way, in the same situations, against the same obstacles, with the same reliability; exactly nothing about it needs to be the same other than its overall usefullness over the course of an average adventure. If you want to take everyone's swag away, that's fine too. But don't rely on the fiction of an effectiveness "floor" (which does not and cannot exist for any pillar) to pretend that the system is balanced.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 03, 2012 - 6:45PM
#19
|
Date Joined:
Oct 26, 2004
|
On the one hand yeah rogues have basically on combat trick, sneak, on the other hand they've got a million ways to pull it off, if they could trade some dice for status effects that'd make it fully awesome.
But yeah the fighter needs some help in the social/exploration area, what if we give fighters a henchman? A short guy who can carry a ton of stuff but doesn't fight. They have amillion uses.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 03, 2012 - 6:45PM
#20
|
Date Joined:
Jul 16, 2003
|
Quantification of some of these ideas like investigation and interaction seem silly. It seems that all this lends towards the idea of solving all of the problem the players face with "Well.... make a roll". Numers for combat are essential because I personally dont want to fight a troll, that sounds dangerous and unrealistic, but let the players work for what they gain. Let them tell you how they search the pedestal or how they shmooze the guard into letting them into where ever they aren't supposed to be.
Yeah yeah not everyone has a silver tongue but let them try. If stats NEED to be employed for social interaction and investigation then maybe pen and paper/face to face is not where they should be. They may like WoW or final fantasy more
|
|
|
