Changing the "Caster beats Mundane" paradigm

[CharonsHelper]

The rest of RPS aside, I like this idea. Especially if PCs are dynamic, but monsters have static "elements" that can be planned around.

I definitely agree that to make RPS work in a TTRPG you would definitely have to have each player have access to multiple branches, though with at least a mild cost to switching between them. (Either best at one, or action economy etc.)

But yes - the monsters would definitely be static (albeit - it's purely spit-balling at this point), though of course NPCs would have the same options as PCs.

[Florian]

I definitely agree that to make RPS work in a TTRPG you would definitely have to have each player have access to multiple branches, though with at least a mild cost to switching between them. (Either best at one, or action economy etc.)

But yes - the monsters would definitely be static (albeit - it's purely spit-balling at this point), though of course NPCs would have the same options as PCs.

Take a look at how L5R works and balances their very pronounced RPS elements.

The base system is build around three classes - Bushi, Courtier and Shugenja, with all of them using the same skills, but each having unique access to class-specific "schools", that give them their special "powers".

The first RPS layer is build into the core class itself:
Bushi: Power of Katana and Duel.
Courtier: Power of the Courts.
Shugenja: Power of the Kami.

Adding schools will open up the second layer, which´ll boost certain aspects further.
Using the optional classes (Ronin, Ninja, Monk - Spider Clan) will add further layers (High Status Rank vs. No Rank, High Honor vs. No Homor, etc.).

Now "pure" Monsters are interesting in this system, as they either conform too much to RPS (certain strengths and vulnerabilities, like something being "of fire" or "against honor") or straight out ignore it, because their position in the setting explicitly calls them out to be no part of "the game".

[Tinkerer]

Ah, I think you haven´t used such a system yet? Ok, so basics: In this kind of system, you roll damage first, then subtract Wounds and Armor from the result (*). If you negate the roll, you simply soak the incoming attack and lose a point of endurance for it. If damage is still left over, you consult the critical hit table and see what exact effect and location the hit had, meaning that damage is never handled as an abstract.

(*) You can try to dodge or parry the attack first, or hope to negate it with a shield, force field or spell.

I have, which particular edition are we discussing here?

I was going off of Dark Heresy 2nd edition which does run how I said before. Sure they make a stink about how wounds do not go down, rather the damage goes up and the wounds statistic counts as a threshold however that is functionally the same as HP going down. Heck I think every GM runs off counting the damage and comparing it to the threshold. Also we might be running across some terminology confusion here, replace every statement of critical hit in my original post with Righteous Fury.

EDIT: Might I inquire as to what the loss of the point of endurance is if not damage handled as an abstract?

[Cosi]

Other than having so many tables, why would I want to play 3.x D&D?

Remember, I didn't say "you should always play 3e rather than AD&D" I said "3e is better designed than AD&D". There are reasons other than design to play one game over another. For example, the number of tables consideration you point out isn't a game design question (at least, not directly). Similarly, your concerns are about tone, not necessarily design. Whether you use BAB or THACO doesn't influence whether your character feels like a Sword and Sorcery hero or a demigod. If what you want to do is not what a game does, you aren't going to play that game regardless of how good it is. If you want to do "cyberpunk fantasy", any quality difference between Exalted and Shadowrun is probably irrelevant.

That said, you can replicate the feel of Sword and Sorcery fairly easily in 3e by playing E6. Indeed I strongly recommend that people simply stop advancing when they reach the power level they want, regardless of what that power level happens to be.

Quertus (and I thought you to a lesser extend with all that talk of hurting verisimilitude by defining the limits of a power) was advocating for having everyone play a highly versatile character with overlapping abilities, and I was offering a counter-point that if everyone has the same abilities they are going to feel samey and redundant.

I'm not advocating (and I don't think Quertus is advocating) for "give the Wizard Rogue abilities. What people are advocating for is not having "Rogue Problems" where there's a lock or a trap and the way to solve it is "point the Rogue at it", because that's not interactive and reduces creativity to "do you have a Rogue, Y/N". Instead, various characters should have different solutions to a given kind of challenge that are differentially effective depending on what specific problem you have. So maybe one character has a travel power that is slow and takes a large number of people and you use that when you need to transport your army around. Another character has a travel power that is faster but takes a larger number of people and you use that when you need to infiltrate somewhere. You don't have anyone who has to sit out the logistics part of the adventure, but you also don't have anyone whose contributions are irrelevant.

So I feel like a good fix would be to either give everyone a niche with exclusive actions (which can result in shadowrun if done poorly), or to democratize all actions, so that anyone can attempt to do anything, just some people are better at it (which means attacking classes as a concept, probably).

The issue, I think, is that "exclusive actions" (which are fine) often ends being "exclusive problems" which are not. It's genuinely okay if the Rogue is the only one who can disarm traps, as long as there are other ways to bypass traps. If the only way to bypass traps is "disarm them", that can't be a Rogue-only ability.

"You roll dice, the GM makes things up" is EVERY RPG EVER, some just cover it with more layers of obfuscation than AW.

No, RPGs go like this:

1. The DM poses a scenario.
2. You take actions with random outcomes.
3. Those actions have predictable effects from the rules.

In Apocalypse World it goes like this:

1. The DM poses a scenario.
2. You take actions with random outcomes.
3. The DM makes up a result.

One of the examples the game gives for "success at a cost" on a stealth mission is someone discovering you.

Different XP tables had the cool side effect of not having everyone level at the same time. This meant that, when you leveled, you got your moment in the spotlight for being the only one with cool new toys.

This can, and should, be accomplished via non-level mechanisms because those give you the ability to give underpowered characters upgrades, rather than fixing "Wizards slow, Fighters fast". Sometimes, the noob is going to want to play a spell guy. Sometimes the expert is going to want to play a sword guy. Having a setup where sword guys all work way X and spell guys all work way Y makes that harder for no good reason.

It also meant that you could tie HD to levels, while not tying HD to XP. Sure, you could give the 3e Wizard 2 HD at level 1, but start giving the 3e Fighter 2 HD per level past 5th. But it would just feel... hacked. Inelegant.

This doesn't seem all that practically different from some classes having larger HD. How does "Fighters get more class features per level, and maybe a per-level HP buff" not capture all the gains from this, while also letting you have a consistently power measure?

Anyone that thinks racial levels don't deserve at least proper analysis of original intent and purpose, and where and when that intent broke down or stopped serving the requirements of the majority of players, shouldn't be talking about RPG theory in the first place.

No. Racial level limits were always stupid. Their original intent may be of interest as a historical question, but they are in no sense defensible as a design choice.

Anyone that thinks all classed games using XP must have the same XP table for all classes, that it's required thing, shouldn't be talking about RPG theory in the first place.

Anything that makes one class lag behind another in levels is bad, even if that one class has much more power than the other class....they can't grasp the concept of a stronger class leveling slower, or refuse to grasp it.

Using different XP tables to balance classes complicates analysis for no reason. If you can balance a 10k XP Wizard and a 10k XP Fighter by making the Fighter level 10 and the Wizard level 7, you can balance them both at level 7 (or 10, or 8, or 9, or 15) and then you can not do XP accounting and also have a cleaner abstraction to talk about character power.

[Darth Ultron]

No, RPGs go like this:

1. The DM poses a scenario.
2. You take actions with random outcomes.
3. Those actions have predictable effects from the rules.

In Apocalypse World it goes like this:

1. The DM poses a scenario.
2. You take actions with random outcomes.
3. The DM makes up a result.

Wow....I would note that DM makes up a result is true in all RPGs that have a DM.

The idea that ''the rules'' somehow have control of the game is just a Player Myth. Really, it is just wishful thinking by the players: that ''the rules'' will, somehow, reduce the power of the DM and keep the DM in line. And it is true a lot of DM's think they are players and then agree with the other players about the rules.

Even if the whole game was nothing but the rules, and it's not, the DM can still do anything ''in the rules''. So the DM can still do anything. So this makes the ''rules'' not matter to the DM.

And ''the rules'' only cover a couple actions in the game, mostly things like combat. And there are no rules for anything else. So again, and much more, a DM can do anything. So again the rules don't matter.

[Talakeal]

I'm not advocating (and I don't think Quertus is advocating) for "give the Wizard Rogue abilities. What people are advocating for is not having "Rogue Problems" where there's a lock or a trap and the way to solve it is "point the Rogue at it", because that's not interactive and reduces creativity to "do you have a Rogue, Y/N". Instead, various characters should have different solutions to a given kind of challenge that are differentially effective depending on what specific problem you have. So maybe one character has a travel power that is slow and takes a large number of people and you use that when you need to transport your army around. Another character has a travel power that is faster but takes a larger number of people and you use that when you need to infiltrate somewhere. You don't have anyone who has to sit out the logistics part of the adventure, but you also don't have anyone whose contributions are irrelevant.

What I am arguing against is the notion that every PC should have roughly the power and versatility of a 3.5 T1 caster.

Such characters are, imo, so all around competent that there is no problem they can't solve alone and thus all characters will become incredibly stale and samey and the team-work aspect of the game will suffer.

I fully agree that problems which can only be solved by a single character type are incredibly lame, but the idea that different characters can solve various problems with varying degrees of difficulty adds a lot to the game.

[LibraryOgre]

What I am arguing against is the notion that every PC should have roughly the power and versatility of a 3.5 T1 caster.

Tier 1 was a mistake, IMO. It grew out of having only a few classes, and not a lot of specificity, so "cleric" and "wizard" became dumping grounds for any magical feat one could think of.

[2D8HP]

...you can replicate the feel of Sword and Sorcery fairly easily in 3e by playing E6...

.
Thanks for the tip!

[flond]

No, RPGs go like this:

1. The DM poses a scenario.
2. You take actions with random outcomes.
3. Those actions have predictable effects from the rules.

In Apocalypse World it goes like this:

1. The DM poses a scenario.
2. You take actions with random outcomes.
3. The DM makes up a result.

One of the examples the game gives for "success at a cost" on a stealth mission is someone discovering you.

So long as you achieve your actual aim before being discovered, that sounds like a fine success at a cost to me. Stealth missions are rarely about hiding in a place just to prove you can after all. The stealth is usually a tool. But hey, you want to call open ended skill rules not role playing games too, go ahead.

[Arbane]

So long as you achieve your actual aim before being discovered, that sounds like a fine success at a cost to me. Stealth missions are rarely about hiding in a place just to prove you can after all. The stealth is usually a tool. But hey, you want to call open ended skill rules not role playing games too, go ahead.

How can it be a Role-Playing Game without a page and a half of different types of polearms?

[Mutazoia]

I'm not advocating (and I don't think Quertus is advocating) for "give the Wizard Rogue abilities. What people are advocating for is not having "Rogue Problems" where there's a lock or a trap and the way to solve it is "point the Rogue at it", because that's not interactive and reduces creativity to "do you have a Rogue, Y/N". Instead, various characters should have different solutions to a given kind of challenge that are differentially effective depending on what specific problem you have. So maybe one character has a travel power that is slow and takes a large number of people and you use that when you need to transport your army around. Another character has a travel power that is faster but takes a larger number of people and you use that when you need to infiltrate somewhere. You don't have anyone who has to sit out the logistics part of the adventure, but you also don't have anyone whose contributions are irrelevant.

What if one class, makes every other class functionally obsolete? A Rogue can take time and make a skill roll to unlock a door. A wizard can cast the "unlock" cantrip, doing the same thing, for free, all day long. Barbarian want's to bash a door down, the wizard has a spell for that too. Hell, depending on the level, the wizard can just MAKE a (magical) door and bypass the locked one completely. Pit traps? Don't have the Rogue search, just have the wizard levitate everyone...wizards even have some basic healing spells to horn in on the cleric's role. All this for the low, low cost of.....NOTHING.

The issue, I think, is that "exclusive actions" (which are fine) often ends being "exclusive problems" which are not. It's genuinely okay if the Rogue is the only one who can disarm traps, as long as there are other ways to bypass traps. If the only way to bypass traps is "disarm them", that can't be a Rogue-only ability.

Sure, because you are a brain surgeon, master chef, a pilot, super scientist, and the concept of people having one job that they had to study and train for is so alien to you that you can't stand seeing in a game? All Wizards are Buckaroo Banzai??

Seriously, by your logic, everybody should be a caster, because casting a spell can't be a caster only ability, right? And wizards should be able to use any weapon and walk around in full plate, because that really shouldn't only be a fighter-type ability, right? So, in your dream game, all characters have no classes at all, and are just fully armored, lock picking, sword swinging, spell slinging Gods??

No, RPGs go like this:

1. The DM poses a scenario.
2. You take actions with random outcomes.
3. Those actions have predictable effects from the rules.

In Apocalypse World it goes like this:

1. The DM poses a scenario.
2. You take actions with random outcomes.
3. The DM makes up a result.

One of the examples the game gives for "success at a cost" on a stealth mission is someone discovering you.

And one of those examples gives you the possibility of a result that has no basis in reality at all.

Player: "I bluff the guard!"
DM: "Yellow marsh mellows from the planet fizglorp steal your nose hair! You fail." (hyperbole)

This can, and should, be accomplished via non-level mechanisms because those give you the ability to give underpowered characters upgrades, rather than fixing "Wizards slow, Fighters fast". Sometimes, the noob is going to want to play a spell guy. Sometimes the expert is going to want to play a sword guy. Having a setup where sword guys all work way X and spell guys all work way Y makes that harder for no good reason.

Two different types of characters functioning completely different from each other?? *GASP* the HORROR

This doesn't seem all that practically different from some classes having larger HD. How does "Fighters get more class features per level, and maybe a per-level HP buff" not capture all the gains from this, while also letting you have a consistently power measure?

The fighter still can't one shot a dragon?

No. Racial level limits were always stupid. Their original intent may be of interest as a historical question, but they are in no sense defensible as a design choice.

When the game was designed to only go to level 10, racial levels made more sense. The bonuses you received for playing a demi-human were balanced out by the level caps. Caps that were really only one or two levels below the games maximum at the time.

Using different XP tables to balance classes complicates analysis for no reason. If you can balance a 10k XP Wizard and a 10k XP Fighter by making the Fighter level 10 and the Wizard level 7, you can balance them both at level 7 (or 10, or 8, or 9, or 15) and then you can not do XP accounting and also have a cleaner abstraction to talk about character power.

Analysis? Are you gaming by accountancy?

The power creep on the wizard is much faster than the power creep on the fighter. To try to say they are functionally equal no matter what the level is absurd. That's like saying a Lamborgini and an SUV should cost the same. Sure, you can technically make the SUV just as fast, if not faster than the Lamb, but your going to sink two to three times the cost of the Lamb (bare minimum) to do so. But hey...they're equal off the assembly line, some how?

[Milo v3]

What if one class, makes every other class functionally obsolete? A Rogue can take time and make a skill roll to unlock a door. A wizard can cast the "unlock" cantrip, doing the same thing, for free, all day long. Barbarian want's to bash a door down, the wizard has a spell for that too. Hell, depending on the level, the wizard can just MAKE a (magical) door and bypass the locked one completely. Pit traps? Don't have the Rogue search, just have the wizard levitate everyone...wizards even have some basic healing spells to horn in on the cleric's role. All this for the low, low cost of.....NOTHING.

Is there actually a game which has all those things as at-will cantrip style abilities that isn't a superhero system?

[Zale]

The issue, I think, is that "exclusive actions" (which are fine) often ends being "exclusive problems" which are not. It's genuinely okay if the Rogue is the only one who can disarm traps, as long as there are other ways to bypass traps. If the only way to bypass traps is "disarm them", that can't be a Rogue-only ability.

Yeah, the thing is that sometimes casters get loads of exclusive actions that other people don't- and they're flat out better.

I mean, Knock is better than having to roll to unlock things. Invisibility is better than a hide check. And you can still make those checks if you want, as a caster.

Either everyone gets to do stuff that other people can't, or everyone can kind of do everything. The alternative is deliberate asymmetry.

[Mutazoia]

Is there actually a game which has all those things as at-will cantrip style abilities that isn't a superhero system?

Usually, spells cast out side of combat are more or less "at-will", as casting times do not matter at that point, and the greatly reduced "refresh" rate on spell slots means casting all those things when ever you want is not an issue.

[Cluedrew]

No, RPGs go like this:

1. The DM poses a scenario.
2. You take actions with random outcomes.
3. Those actions have predictable effects from the rules.

In Apocalypse World it goes like this:

1. The DM poses a scenario.
2. You take actions with random outcomes.
3. The DM makes up a result.

Besides what flond said, are we talking about an action with a random outcome or a predictable one? I don't think you are actually talking about both Those are very different. In the case of a random outcome, yes Powered by the Apocalypse does generally just hand things over to the GM instead of having random tables for it, but I don't really feel that is a problem. For predictable outcomes, yes the GM makes things up, but within a rather narrow box, that gets even smaller in narrative context, so I have found I can usually predict it as well enough. Sure it is not perfect, and probably wouldn't work in a super competitive verses game, but this isn't that.

Although at the other end, recently I've be shocked* by how the GM has resolved an action as many times in D&D as in any of three Powered by the Apocalypse games I've played, so things breaking expectation can easily happen in either model.

* As in "Wait, what? How did that happen?

How can it be a Role-Playing Game without a page and a half of different types of polearms?

Smaller font size or bigger pages.

[Milo v3]

Usually, spells cast out side of combat are more or less "at-will", as casting times do not matter at that point, and the greatly reduced "refresh" rate on spell slots means casting all those things when ever you want is not an issue.

At-Will means you can do whenever you want, it's not to do with casting times. Reduced refresh rate? What are you talking about?

[Cosi]

Wow....I would note that DM makes up a result is true in all RPGs that have a DM.

If the things that happen are the result of one person making stuff up, you are not playing a game. You are being told a story.

What if one class, makes every other class functionally obsolete?

What if lots of classes have no useful abilities?

Seriously, by your logic, everybody should be a caster, because casting a spell can't be a caster only ability, right? And wizards should be able to use any weapon and walk around in full plate, because that really shouldn't only be a fighter-type ability, right? So, in your dream game, all characters have no classes at all, and are just fully armored, lock picking, sword swinging, spell slinging Gods??

How did you get "everyone needs to have every ability" out of a post that explicitly says that exclusive abilities are a thing that is okay?

Two different types of characters functioning completely different from each other?? *GASP* the HORROR

Yes, the horror that we might want to be able to tell which Fighters are nominally equivalent to which Wizards without having to two different table lookups. I can't wait until the game starts introducing new classes, all of whom have their own XP tables. What level of Hexblade is appropriate to fight my party of a 7th level Dragon Shaman, a 10th level Truenamer, a 3rd level Dread Necromancer, and a 6th level Ninja again? Is that party even balanced to begin with?

When the game was designed to only go to level 10, racial levels made more sense. The bonuses you received for playing a demi-human were balanced out by the level caps. Caps that were really only one or two levels below the games maximum at the time.

Nope. That's not how balance works. Power now for power later is not balanced.

Analysis? Are you gaming by accountancy?

Yes, I would like to know what the rules of the game I'm playing do. I'm increasingly disturbed by the number of people who apparently believe "knowing how to play a game" is unnecessary for or even harmful to their efforts to play that game.

The power creep on the wizard is much faster than the power creep on the fighter. To try to say they are functionally equal no matter what the level is absurd.

This point is either you willfully misreading what I said again (I said "if you can balance them in condition X you can balance them in condition Y", not "they are currently balanced"), or you saying that it is literally impossible for Wizards and Fighters to ever be balanced. Both of those positions are stupid.

I mean, Knock is better than having to roll to unlock things. Invisibility is better than a hide check. And you can still make those checks if you want, as a caster.

I've repeatedly said that knock is not really better than Open Lock at the time you get it. It has advantages (faster, more consistent), but also disadvantages (less uses, higher opportunity cost). invisibility just is a Hide check. It's a Hide check at a +20 bonus, but there's no reason in principle a Rogue couldn't get a +20 bonus to Hide. The reason it's often superior in practice is that people don't want mundanes to have nice things, but it seems unfair to blame that on casters.

[Venom3053000]

I think part of the mundane problem is the Rogue Fighter split really messes with them

Fighter's basically get nothing but the ability to smash faces in and if they can't are basically a pack mule for the rest of the party, they can't lead because they don't get any of the skills needed to lead and they have no Knowledge skills so they know nothing about anything, if they didn't have Craft they wouldn't have any way to make a living but as a muderhobo in a city


now Rogue do get the Skills needed to do stuff but also die faster in a fight and if they can't sneak attack or hide against the large number of creatures that make that useless the best thing they can do is use whatever magic item a magic user gave them and hope it helps


so you can either fight well and basically do nothing else or fight well against some things while a good blow can take you out of the fight but at least you can do things besides just fighting

and thats stupid

[Arbane]

If the things that happen are the result of one person making stuff up, you are not playing a game. You are being told a story.

I have some BAD NEWS for you about the role of GMs in the vast majority of RPG systems.

They are one person in the game, who MAKES STUFF UP for the other players to deal with.

I think part of the mundane problem is the Rogue Fighter split really messes with them

Fighter's basically get nothing but the ability to smash faces in and if they can't are basically a pack mule for the rest of the party, they can't lead because they don't get any of the skills needed to lead and they have no Knowledge skills so they know nothing about anything, if they didn't have Craft they wouldn't have any way to make a living but as a muderhobo in a city


now Rogue do get the Skills needed to do stuff but also die faster in a fight and if they can't sneak attack or hide against the large number of creatures that make that useless the best thing they can do is use whatever magic item a magic user gave them and hope it helps


so you can either fight well and basically do nothing else or fight well against some things while a good blow can take you out of the fight but at least you can do things besides just fighting

and thats stupid

Very much agreed. One of the most common ideas to 'fix' Fighters is to gestalt them with Rogues, so they can break face AND be a skillmonkey. (I don't think it's enough, but it's a good start.)

[Satinavian]

I've repeatedly said that knock is not really better than Open Lock at the time you get it. It has advantages (faster, more consistent), but also disadvantages (less uses, higher opportunity cost). invisibility just is a Hide check. It's a Hide check at a +20 bonus, but there's no reason in principle a Rogue couldn't get a +20 bonus to Hide. The reason it's often superior in practice is that people don't want mundanes to have nice things, but it seems unfair to blame that on casters.

For the rogue it costs build ressources. Skill points (and lots of class skills) are one of the major class features rogues get. And two skills is already a significant part of that.

For a wizard it is only an opportunity cost of a spellslot that day and an insignificant amount of money. A wizard who learns knock and invisibility has not to give up anything for it.

That is why people complain far less about scorcerers with knock and invisibility.

[Psyren]

Tier 1 was a mistake, IMO. It grew out of having only a few classes, and not a lot of specificity, so "cleric" and "wizard" became dumping grounds for any magical feat one could think of.

I would say the problem is not that those classes became dumping grounds for all the magic, but that they have so few opportunity costs to grabbing most or all of it.

In other words - a class that is capable of anything is not actually a problem; rather, the problem is a build that is capable of everything. A wizard who can excel at melee is okay, a wizard who can be a talented summoner is okay, a wizard who can find the macguffin is okay, and a wizard who can control his enemies is okay. The issue is a wizard that can do all of these, or even one that can do all of these with only a night's rest in between.

Though I will add that some of these - particularly "talented summoner" - are themselves routes to becoming capable of everything and so those need to be toned down too.

[Venom3053000]

Very much agreed. One of the most common ideas to 'fix' Fighters is to gestalt them with Rogues, so they can break face AND be a skillmonkey. (I don't think it's enough, but it's a good start.)

I'd probably mess around with feats if I was trying to fix the Fighter

make things worthwhile not just "oh your slightly less bad at dual wielding" and some requirments would have to go (Why is Legendary Rider an epic level feat?)

You call something a Feat and it should BE an Heroic Feat

[Quertus]

I'm not advocating (and I don't think Quertus is advocating) for "give the Wizard Rogue abilities. What people are advocating for is not having "Rogue Problems" where there's a lock or a trap and the way to solve it is "point the Rogue at it", because that's not interactive and reduces creativity to "do you have a Rogue, Y/N". Instead, various characters should have different solutions to a given kind of challenge that are differentially effective depending on what specific problem you have.

The issue, I think, is that "exclusive actions" (which are fine) often ends being "exclusive problems" which are not. It's genuinely okay if the Rogue is the only one who can disarm traps, as long as there are other ways to bypass traps. If the only way to bypass traps is "disarm them", that can't be a Rogue-only ability.

Pretty much. When you encounter a door, the Rogue can pick the lock, the Wizard can cast Knock, the Fighter can beat it down, and the Cleric... can check to see if it was locked in the first place?

This can, and should, be accomplished via non-level mechanisms because those give you the ability to give underpowered characters upgrades, rather than fixing "Wizards slow, Fighters fast". Sometimes, the noob is going to want to play a spell guy. Sometimes the expert is going to want to play a sword guy. Having a setup where sword guys all work way X and spell guys all work way Y makes that harder for no good reason.

Hmmm... Let's dissect this. Whether the characters level at the same time or different times, you can give the noob a handicap in levels or XP (or not do so). Or bonus wealth / equipment. Or upgrades to their class / stats.

The only advantage to leveling at the same time that I can see is, if they change characters, you can keep them at the same level handicap, and hope that it is still balanced. It makes the math of enforcing and forcing balance a little easier. Which, to me, means that is has the corresponding downside that the GM is that much less likely to evaluate the impact of the handicap rather than just applying it blind.

So... What advantage(s) to balanced by level over balanced by XP did you see?

This doesn't seem all that practically different from some classes having larger HD. How does "Fighters get more class features per level, and maybe a per-level HP buff" not capture all the gains from this, while also letting you have a consistently power measure?

From the PoV of 3e?

First: elegance.

Second: where do you tie skill points, feats, stat boosts, etc?

Third (partially contingent upon the 2nd): I can see this system producing a lot of unintended cross-class early entry BS.

Fourth (related to 1st): how the **** do you build a gestalt in such a system?

Using different XP tables to balance classes complicates analysis for no reason. If you can balance a 10k XP Wizard and a 10k XP Fighter by making the Fighter level 10 and the Wizard level 7, you can balance them both at level 7 (or 10, or 8, or 9, or 15) and then you can not do XP accounting and also have a cleaner abstraction to talk about character power.

See above for examples of why I see it as an issue of where you have complexity, not of whether it exists.

What I am arguing against is the notion that every PC should have roughly the power and versatility of a 3.5 T1 caster.

Such characters are, imo, so all around competent that there is no problem they can't solve alone and thus all characters will become incredibly stale and samey and the team-work aspect of the game will suffer.

Ok, there's a bunch of problems here. First and foremost, action economy, having been the downfall of many an otherwise overpowering BBEG, is a huge gaping hole in the "I'll just do it all myself" plan.

Second, "play with better people" would like to have a word with you regarding the presumed lack of teamwork.

Third, if balanced characters are inherently incredibly "stale and samey", then we should clearly not aim for balance, and we should just make Wizards better.

I fully agree that problems which can only be solved by a single character type are incredibly lame, but the idea that different characters can solve various problems with varying degrees of difficulty adds a lot to the game.

I don't disagree, but most people's complaints about muggles is that they just can't solve many classes of problems. So... Are we aggressively agreeing again?

Yeah, the thing is that sometimes casters get loads of exclusive actions that other people don't- and they're flat out better.

I mean, Knock is better than having to roll to unlock things. Invisibility is better than a hide check. And you can still make those checks if you want, as a caster.

Either everyone gets to do stuff that other people can't, or everyone can kind of do everything. The alternative is deliberate asymmetry.

Knock is only strictly better if it's at will, silent, and doesn't simultaneously unlock the hidden cache of lava above your head. Last time I used a Knock-like effect, none of those were true.

Nor could I try to argue for using it to relock the door behind me.

Usually, spells cast out side of combat are more or less "at-will", as casting times do not matter at that point, and the greatly reduced "refresh" rate on spell slots means casting all those things when ever you want is not an issue.

Um, what? Last time I had a D&D Wizard dumb enough to memorize Knock, it was a huge blow to my resources / stamina.

Yes, the horror that we might want to be able to tell which Fighters are nominally equivalent to which Wizards without having to two different table lookups. I can't wait until the game starts introducing new classes, all of whom have their own XP tables. What level of Hexblade is appropriate to fight my party of a 7th level Dragon Shaman, a 10th level Truenamer, a 3rd level Dread Necromancer, and a 6th level Ninja again? Is that party even balanced to begin with?

I would love to see that nightmare. It couldn't be worse than Rifts.

Nope. That's not how balance works. Power now for power later is not balanced.

It's not "balance", it's "demo". You can play the game up to level 5 in this easy demo, but, to play all the way up to level 10, you need to buy the real game (and play on at least "normal" difficulty)

Yes, I would like to know what the rules of the game I'm playing do. I'm increasingly disturbed by the number of people who apparently believe "knowing how to play a game" is unnecessary for or even harmful to their efforts to play that game.

I've repeatedly said that knock is not really better than Open Lock at the time you get it. It has advantages (faster, more consistent), but also disadvantages (less uses, higher opportunity cost). invisibility just is a Hide check. It's a Hide check at a +20 bonus, but there's no reason in principle a Rogue couldn't get a +20 bonus to Hide. The reason it's often superior in practice is that people don't want mundanes to have nice things, but it seems unfair to blame that on casters.

Just wanted to say that I very much agree with these sentiments. So, is the first step to solving the perceived problem to let muggles have nice things?

In other words - a class that is capable of anything is not actually a problem; rather, the problem is a build that is capable of everything. A wizard who can excel at melee is okay, a wizard who can be a talented summoner is okay, a wizard who can find the macguffin is okay, and a wizard who can control his enemies is okay. The issue is a wizard that can do all of these, or even one that can do all of these with only a night's rest in between.

So, if we just merge übercharger, leadership, skill monkey, and diplomancer into a single muggle, it'll be balanced, and we can get back to playing the game?

[Arbane]

I'd probably mess around with feats if I was trying to fix the Fighter

make things worthwhile not just "oh your slightly less bad at dual wielding" and some requirments would have to go (Why is Legendary Rider an epic level feat?)

You call something a Feat and it should BE an Heroic Feat

Agreed. Apparently, early in D&D3's development Feats were going to be Fighter-only, but then they decided to give them to everyone, so they had to water them down so they wouldn't be 'too good'....

So yeah, I fully support Better Feats For Fighters. And making most of the standard combat maneuvers things they can just DO without sucking an AoO.

I don't disagree, but most people's complaints about muggles is that they just can't solve many classes of problems.

Yep. Consider the following plots. Each is an entire quest in itself for the lowly non-magical peasants, and a single spell for their rightful caster overlords:

Travel across a continent in a single day.
Get to the top of an inhospitable mountain.
Save a noble who's been poisoned.
Solve a murder mystery.
Visit another plane.
Revive the dead.
Translate an ancient text in a forgotten language.
Save a friend who's dying of a rare disease.
Find out what a hostile conspiracy is plotting.

There's plenty more, these are just off the top of my head.

[Mutazoia]

At-Will means you can do whenever you want, it's not to do with casting times. Reduced refresh rate? What are you talking about?

Is there a time, other than in an anti-magic field, when you can't cast a spell when ever you want? Being in combat, just means you may have to suck an AoO to do so.

What if lots of classes have no useful abilities?

What if each class, had it's own...class....of useful abilities, and we didn't have one class that could mimic all of those abilities with the wave of a hand?

Yes, the horror that we might want to be able to tell which Fighters are nominally equivalent to which Wizards without having to two different table lookups. I can't wait until the game starts introducing new classes, all of whom have their own XP tables. What level of Hexblade is appropriate to fight my party of a 7th level Dragon Shaman, a 10th level Truenamer, a 3rd level Dread Necromancer, and a 6th level Ninja again? Is that party even balanced to begin with?

Fighters and wizards are not equivalent....that's the problem. They shouldn't be. But one of them has a huge power advantage over the other, with no real cost for that power. And if having each class with it's own XP table is so horrifying, then we either A) don't have 500 new classes introduced with each splat and don't release so many spats, or B) have these new classes function as "kits" that use the XP table of their base class.

We already have a power imbalance, just with the core rules. If you keep adding new classes willy-nilly, your just making the problem worse.

Nope. That's not how balance works. Power now for power later is not balanced.

That's not even close to the example. It was "power here for a handicap over here". Think of it in point buy system terms: A take a -1 flaw, and in exchange, I get an extra 1 point to spend elsewhere. Your example would be: I gain an extra point for a flaw, and get a bonus point for 'reasons'.

Yes, I would like to know what the rules of the game I'm playing do. I'm increasingly disturbed by the number of people who apparently believe "knowing how to play a game" is unnecessary for or even harmful to their efforts to play that game.

What you describe is more wanting to know which class is more powerful than the others, rather than wanting to know how the rules work.

This point is either you willfully misreading what I said again (I said "if you can balance them in condition X you can balance them in condition Y", not "they are currently balanced"), or you saying that it is literally impossible for Wizards and Fighters to ever be balanced. Both of those positions are stupid.

If you can balance two sponges when both are wet, you can balance them when one is wet and one is bone dry. Gotcha.

If a wizard can one shot a dragon from range, and a fighter has to whittle it down with his sword, they are balanced. Gotcha.

I've repeatedly said that knock is not really better than Open Lock at the time you get it.

Functional words here are "at the time you get it". But then again, Open Lock is not really all that good when you first get it, either. But then, rogues don't have cantrips to open locks either.

invisibility just is a Hide check. It's a Hide check at a +20 bonus, but there's no reason in principle a Rogue couldn't get a +20 bonus to Hide.

To get a +20 bonus, the usual method is to "take 20"...take 20 minutes (basically) to do something that a wizard does with a wave of his hand.....

The reason it's often superior in practice is that people don't want mundanes to have nice things, but it seems unfair to blame that on casters.

Yes...we shouldn't blame the casters who get nice things for free, when everybody else gets jack, or has to put effort into getting said things.

Nobody is really blaming the casters...we are blaming the imbalanced rules that give casters their own nice things, as well as the nice things that the other classes have.

[Milo v3]

Is there a time, other than in an anti-magic field, when you can't cast a spell when ever you want? Being in combat, just means you may have to suck an AoO to do so.

Yeah you're definitely not understanding what I just said.....

You can't cast a spell whenever you want because spells are finite in how many you can use per day in most systems, or they take up time, or some other resource.

[Mutazoia]

Yeah you're definitely not understanding what I just said.....

You can't cast a spell whenever you want because spells are finite in how many you can use per day in most systems, or they take up time, or some other resource.

Yeah, I got you.

[Talakeal]

Ok, there's a bunch of problems here. First and foremost, action economy, having been the downfall of many an otherwise overpowering BBEG, is a huge gaping hole in the "I'll just do it all myself" plan.

I said that action economy matters in combat (at least below a certain level of optimization where you can freely manipulate time); its outside of combat where it is really hard to make action economy matter and doing so repeatedly becomes increasingly contrived.

Also, if I wanted to serve no purpose in the party besides another warm body who provides combat support I could just play a muggle as is.

Second, "play with better people" would like to have a word with you regarding the presumed lack of teamwork.

This isn't about other people, this is about me.

Maybe I am a "toxic person," but personally if I don't contribute anything to the group I would rather not be there, and if I can solve a problem on my own I would prefer to work on my own. This is both in and out of character.

I also feel that forcing everyone to participate whether or not they are needed just so everyone can pretend they contributed is very patronizing.

Third, if balanced characters are inherently incredibly "stale and samey", then we should clearly not aim for balance, and we should just make Wizards better.

I think you are confused. Forcing everyone to play the same character type (in this case a "jack of all trades) would be balanced, but balance does not mean forcing everyone to play the same character. Different but equal is definitely a thing.

I don't disagree, but most people's complaints about muggles is that they just can't solve many classes of problems. So... Are we aggressively agreeing again?

No. I do not agree that every character needs to be able to solve every, or even most, problems to be viable.

But again, it comes down to what you mean by "solve", after all there is no problem in 3.5 that is can't be fixed by sampling buying a candle of invocation, and given time and ingenuity enough I fully believe that a mundane character can meaningfully contribute to just about any traditional fantasy problem.

[Florian]

Is there actually a game which has all those things as at-will cantrip style abilities that isn't a superhero system?

I´m mentioning Splittermond quite often. Every character has a pool of "Spell Points" that know two states: "used" and "burned". Used points can be continuously reset but can only create temporary spell effects, burned points reset after 24 hours but will generate persistent effects (third option is to "overcharge" an instantaneous spell at the cost of burning points).

The key difference to d20 is how spells work, their mechanics more deeply integrated with the rest of the (skill) system. For ex, you need to be able to pick a lock to make meaningful use of the Instant Lock Pick spell, or you should be good at spotting and navigation to make most of Form of the Eagle, and so on.

Edit: So its more common to see a "Fighter" having the Protection, Strength and Light schools, or a "Rogue" having the Shadow and Air schools, than what we typically identify as "Clerics" or "Wizards".

[Satinavian]

Going to "At will" for spells would get rid of ressource management for spell slots. Which would then allow to get rid of casters ability to go Nova by shifting ressources from one encounter to another. Casters would always cast as best as they could and the overall power of spells could be toned down accordingly.

It is a direction one could take, but i am not really convinced.


Also Splittermond has just one of many mana point system. That is not exactly "at will". And while it works very well, this particular aspect is not exactly original. Ars Magica or Shadowrun are closer to at will but not completely there as in both cases powerful magic requires some rest as magic has a chance to inflict fatique. Iirc Warhammer RPG did once allow something like at will casting but the price was paid in really dangerous misfires.