Xev20 - Class Structure Discussion

[beejazz]

Haven't had a reply for a bit. I'm having a hard time thinking of how to balance attacks in a system where they aren't separated from utilities. It seems like standard actions will need to be equal across classes, and have utilities largely restricted to move and minor actions. Most of the utilities a fighter or a rogue would use would be exploration (move) or social, and social actions that could be used in combat (like bluff) are comparable to attacks (even if they don't deal damage).

I'd really like to be talked out of this, though. If combat averages 10 rounds, then a limited attack that deals 10 damage would be comparable to +1 damage per attack, so a differentiation could be built between fighters and wizards. But if a wizard chooses to take utilities with their spells instead of attacks, we'd end up with the fighter now dealing more damage; and the fighter really doesn't have the option to take utilities instead of attacks.

Also, being able to choose utilities instead of attacks means combat will take longer.

Again, I want to be talked out of the attack/utility split, but I'm having a hard time seeing a way to do it.

When I talked about the benefits of having the two draw from the same resource, I was talking more about things like spell slots or action types. In character building, it might be more acceptable to "force" a mix. Or even have one option you can trade down to but not the reverse.

Also, certain things really could be balanced apples-to-apples even if they work differently, like defense vs offense. Other things, like status effects and movement could work a little differently (there are specific levels or tiers where they become available, and certain things are exclusive or easier for a given class).

Anyway, things useful both inside and outside combat would include:
Stealth
Illusion
Counters to the above
Movement (include movt. modes like climbing, jumping, flight, teleportation, etc)
Terrain Control
Morale Effects
"Aggro" Effects (you can write them so people can force a fight to happen)
Fear Effects
Charm/Suggestion/Calm Effects
Minion Stuff (summoning, zombies)
Healing (including unconventional healing, like for disease or poison or even magical effects)
Certain Buffs
Certain Debuffs

All of the above things are things that could either get called utilities or be filed under the main power thing (whether you keep calling that attack or not). If you file all those things under utility, genuinely "utility only" abilities like "purify food and water" or "bluff really well" might suffer by comparison. I think things with any combat utility should be placed alongside things with exclusively combat utility.

If every spell could have combative and utilitarian value, that would be nice, but when I look at the 3E spell list, I don't think this is possible.

But I don't think the wizard would spend their standard actions for utility if given the option to spend every slot on attacks; whether or not these attacks are blasts, debuffs, or area control is up to the individual leader. I think combat and out of combat should be addressed separately, but this could be a divide between us. I don't want the Fighter to be 100% combat either, but I want everyone to be comparable within combat. I also want everyone to feel useful out of combat, though there's more room for variety there (as someone can be good when dealing with social situations, where as others are better at dealing with the environment).

My idea on how to remove the attack/utility split would be to make sure everyone has something they can do at-will for X (cantrips, basic weapon attacks) and something they can do in a limited fashion for 1.5X (like spells or endurance costing maneuvers). Like M&M characters, wizards could learn new attack spells as alternates to their other spells. Utility effects, whether they be spells or a fighter's specials, could be detached from these slots. Would these casters feel like D&D without having ever growing spell lists?

I'm just thinking form my experience. In 3E, the party sorcerer was the caster we had for the bulk of our experience. He used the vast majority of his spells for offense (though we often joked that his 2nd level slots were purely defensive, like blur and mirror image). When people weren't pulling their weight in combat, the group felt it as a whole. We had a ranger in the party who was largely ineffective initially (Str 10, Dex 20, weapon finesse, twfing), and only found a place in the game when he began to focus on Disarms and Trips (and later when we changed some feats so he could deal reasonable damage); on the other hand, we had a barbarian in the party who ruled over combat without having to try.

My games are going to have a good amount of combat. I want combat to balance against non-combat. I want to figure out how to balance combat before I balance the rest. Is that the wrong path? Am I losing you all with that goal?

I would agree that making all things useful both in and out of combat is foolish, but there are both areas without much overlap (dealing damage or making friends) and areas with a lot of overlap (see the list above; transversal and terrain management both have all kinds of out of combat use).

I think a slower growing spell list is one of the better moves 4e made, as it could get ridiculous after a while, especially for NPCs.

Balancing combat is a laudable goal, but since it's a co-op game, remember that roles and niche protection are a huge part of an RPGs conception of balance. Even if the cleric couldn't hold his own in combat he still would be needed for healing (in some editions). Role and niche protection also help a little with replay value, as playing a different character can be like playing a whole other game, depending on the system.

I spent some time recently staring at the 3E wizard. We were fine with the wizard not getting class abilities; their class abilities were their spells, after all.

One of the things I have distilled from the complaints about the attack/utility split is that it doesn't allow too many utilities for wizards, who often rely upon them for problem solving and other effects.

What if the heroic wizard looked more like this:

Levels   Ability
1          Class Abilities, Build Abilities, Attack Spell (lvl 1), Utility Spell (lvl 1)
2          Attack Spell (lvl 1)
3          Utility Spell (lvl 1)
4          Attack Spell (lvl 2)
5          Utility Spell (lvl 2)
6          Attack Spell (lvl 2)
7          Utility Spell (lvl 2)
8          Attack Spell (lvl 3)
9          Utility Spell (lvl 3)
10        Attack Spell (lvl 3), Utility Spell (lvl 3)

Other casters may end up giving up some of those utility slots for locked in class abilities. Maybe different wizard builds would select their spells from different lists, or there could be some requirement to choose half your powers from your build's list (like specialist wizards).

This seems fairly comparable to 3E wizards; they gained at least 1 new spell slot every level (though the odd levels were more important). I could squeeze an ability or two in there, like the Wizard's bonus feats, to ensure that they continue to gain new flavor.

Rituals still stand outside of this, allowing wizards to tackle many other non-encounter based effects (lumping combat, social, and exploration scenes into encounters). Perhaps wizards should gain a number of free rituals each day, so they can feel especially wizardy.

I like the idea of different wizards (or different casters) using different lists. One thing you should remember is that if certain abilities are class-specific you can use this for combo prevention. For instance, in my game, flight and invisibility are somewhat less game breaking because the class that uses them also relies on auras offensively (so he can fly and be invisible, but can't then debuff from that position).

[sparkletwist]

If every spell could have combative and utilitarian value, that would be nice, but when I look at the 3E spell list, I don't think this is possible.

Well, why can't you change the spell list? :D

It's more work on the spell list, sure, but it solves another big problem you're having, and it makes magic feel a lot more engaging than having a bunch of one-trick pony spells. Of course, this may be my fondness for more rules-light systems where the players and GM have a lot more leeway that kind of stuff, but I also think the already existent flexibility and roleplay potential in many spells is one thing that makes 3e spells feel more "dynamic" than 4e.

I think combat and out of combat should be addressed separately

I guess I didn't really understand what you were asking for. I thought "attack" was basically "in combat" and "utility" was basically "out of combat," and you were trying to get rid of a hard separation... but I possibly misunderstood.

I would agree that making all things useful both in and out of combat is foolish, but there are both areas without much overlap (dealing damage or making friends) and areas with a lot of overlap (see the list above; transversal and terrain management both have all kinds of out of combat use).

Nobody's advocating making all things useful both in and out of combat. At least, I'm not. I do propose to vastly increase the number of abilities that have both in and out of combat usefulness, however. Again, this could be my fondness for lighter systems, but I really do think this encourages roleplay and out of the box thinking. It also encourages GMs to fully think through the ramifications of the abilities they give players, which can help verisimilitude and character flexibility a lot-- rather than the usual case where you have a power, spell, or whatever that has one specific purpose in its description, but its potential other uses go totally ignored by both rules and players.

I disagree with your examples, though. Dealing damage probably has a noncombat use if you need to break something. Making friends probably has a combat use if you need to calm an aggressive monster down. It may not be the best way to go about it, but it's a way.

[beejazz]

I would agree that making all things useful both in and out of combat is foolish, but there are both areas without much overlap (dealing damage or making friends) and areas with a lot of overlap (see the list above; transversal and terrain management both have all kinds of out of combat use).

Nobody's advocating making all things useful both in and out of combat. At least, I'm not. I do propose to vastly increase the number of abilities that have both in and out of combat usefulness, however. Again, this could be my fondness for lighter systems, but I really do think this encourages roleplay and out of the box thinking. It also encourages GMs to fully think through the ramifications of the abilities they give players, which can help verisimilitude and character flexibility a lot-- rather than the usual case where you have a power, spell, or whatever that has one specific purpose in its description, but its potential other uses go totally ignored by both rules and players.

I disagree with your examples, though. Dealing damage probably has a noncombat use if you need to break something. Making friends probably has a combat use if you need to calm an aggressive monster down. It may not be the best way to go about it, but it's a way.

I got where you were going, but I don't know if he did. Like I was saying, overlap varies. Damage has less use out of combat (not none, necessarily) and likewise for some social stuff (you'll note that my list has aggro, morale, fear and the like, which are the most likely candidates here).

[Xeviat]

Utility isn't neceesarily non-combat; utility is non-attack. For instance, granting your allies +2 to damage for combat (which we're pretending lasts, on average, 10 rounds), then that's equal to an attack that deals 80 damage (assuming a 4 person party). Such a buff would be an "attack", even though there's no attack roll or direct damage.

Utility could involve movement, stealth, social effects ... pretty much everything that isn't overtly offensive.

I'd be willing to allow attacks to be traded down for utilities, but still a bit loath to do so because I have seen several players purposefully gimp their characters and then be resented by the rest of the party (especially when I started allowing flaws).

And yes, some attacks can be useful out of combat. Mind control could be useful out of combat. Knocking a wall down could be useful out of combat.

Thanks, everyone, for putting up with my wishywashyness. If I was willing to go back to dailies, I'd consider just applying the 4E attack/defense/skill system ontop of the 3E classes, then polishing them to make up for the new balance. From there, it may be possible to adjust things up to being encounter instead of daily (encounter being "before taking a breather").

[sparkletwist]

I think I understand now. One idea is that instead of "+2 to damage," the bonus instead grants "+2 to a roll using a certain stat under a certain set of circumstances," for example, a +2 to a roll that uses strength in some application where you're needing an explosive burst of power, or some such thing like that. The advantage here is that it allows more flexibility with respect to combat vs. non-combat. In addition, the type of damage that it gives a boost to might also be open to some tweaking, to prevent spamming of this buff in every situation.