Limiting Combat Roles by Class

[J.E. Sawyer]

It isn't a goal of ours to limit a character's combat role by class, but it is a goal to make every character class have one role that it's easy for them to excel in. For example, most IE games (being derived from AD&D 2nd Edition until IWD2) effectively threw thief characters into the garbage bin, combat-wise.

[septembervirgin]

Rangers with stealth ability might be very useful indeed, but I have my sights on an initial character that is an aesthete, an aristocrat, and a fan of Sara Silverman.

[PsychoBlonde]

It isn't a goal of ours to limit a character's combat role by class, but it is a goal to make every character class have one role that it's easy for them to excel in. For example, most IE games (being derived from AD&D 2nd Edition until IWD2) effectively threw thief characters into the garbage bin, combat-wise.

 

ZOMG wasn't this the truth. Thieves were basically pointless in pnp 2nd edition D&D anyway. Need to sneak? Get the wizard with invisibility 10' radius. Clerics got Find Traps as a 2nd level spell, and it was 100% effective whereas your rogue actually had to search and roll dice. Backstab damage only multiplied the base weapon damage and was far less worthwhile than having a good strength. And they got screwed on AC and HP.

 

Just please keep in mind that "each class can excel in something" shouldn't mean "we put some annoying obstacles in that can only be bypassed by this one particular class so you'll be obliged to haul them along".

 

I'd almost suggest you sample some Dungeons and Dragons Online if you haven't gotten to it, because here is a game with 13 classes yet all of them are distinct, bring something unique to the table, and yet you aren't absolutely STUCK with having any of them--well, apart from raids which cannot really be done without clerics or favored souls because you need the big heals. But you can (and I have) do every. single. quest. in the game with ANY kind of party makeup. And most classes have plenty of opportunities to contribute in areas that aren't their main focus. Fighter types can CC enemies with Trip and Stunning Blow. Rogues can heal with Use Magic Device. Wizards can tank.

[ddillon]

It isn't a goal of ours to limit a character's combat role by class, but it is a goal to make every character class have one role that it's easy for them to excel in. For example, most IE games (being derived from AD&D 2nd Edition until IWD2) effectively threw thief characters into the garbage bin, combat-wise.

 

DA:O-style rogues would be nice: Backstab, dirty combat tricks, poisons, bombs, dual-wielding, etc - very fun to play.

[Baudolino05]

ZOMG wasn't this the truth. Thieves were basically pointless in pnp 2nd edition D&D anyway. Need to sneak? Get the wizard with invisibility 10' radius. Clerics got Find Traps as a 2nd level spell, and it was 100% effective whereas your rogue actually had to search and roll dice. Backstab damage only multiplied the base weapon damage and was far less worthwhile than having a good strength. And they got screwed on AC and HP.

 

No, they weren't, at least with a good GM. Invisibility and move silently are not equivalent (one effects the sight and the other one the hear); thieves have other useful skills like lock pick, pickpocket, hear noises or climb walls, and furthermore in a p&p session is never a good idea wasting spell slots, considering that you can't rest whenever you want.

AD&D is among the most unbalanced p&p ruleset ever created, but no class was really useless in that system. AD&D videogames made some of them trash (all without exception)...

 

Just please keep in mind that "each class can excel in something" shouldn't mean "we put some annoying obstacles in that can only be bypassed by this one particular class so you'll be obliged to haul them along

I'd almost suggest you sample some Dungeons and Dragons Online if you haven't gotten to it, because here is a game with 13 classes yet all of them are distinct, bring something unique to the table, and yet you aren't absolutely STUCK with having any of them--well, apart from raids which cannot really be done without clerics or favored souls because you need the big heals. But you can (and I have) do every. single. quest. in the game with ANY kind of party makeup. And most classes have plenty of opportunities to contribute in areas that aren't their main focus. Fighter types can CC enemies with Trip and Stunning Blow. Rogues can heal with Use Magic Device. Wizards can tank.

 

Frankly, I can't understand why a good RPG designer should look to MMOs for inspiration about combat, considering that they are simplified versions of RPGs. I would suggest good real time tactical games instead...

Edited October 1, 2012 by Baudolino05

[Merin]

It isn't a goal of ours to limit a character's combat role by class, but it is a goal to make every character class have one role that it's easy for them to excel in. For example, most IE games (being derived from AD&D 2nd Edition until IWD2) effectively threw thief characters into the garbage bin, combat-wise.

 

I just said this in a different thread -

 

I almost never (I think I fiddled once or twice with a fighter/rogue halfing or a mage/rogue elf once or twice) had a thief in my party in the D&D games. Not only could you have other characters handle the duties (or ignore the duties... oooh, traps, run through them and heal) but it was effectively a wasted slot - a second cleric or wizard would do you much more good, and even a second fighter (one more tank or an archer) was a better choice.

 

DA:O is the first game where I CREATED a rogue to play, and on my first play of the game - but that was because, narratively, with the background choices given and the one I picked, I wanted to role-play a rogue for the first time in my life. Say what you want about BioWare, that was an achievement in my book.

 

All the IE games, and D&D prior to 4E in general? Yeah, no thanks, negative interest in rogues. 4E, however, made rogues quite interesting to play tactically.

[Adhin]

ADnD is a prime example of what you said you don't like, Mad. They had no character customization outside of attributes and what magic you wanted to have memorized. They're was no character customization via level. Unless you just meant you hope a healer isn't a requirement and as such any class combination can 'get the job done'. In either case I agree DAO did a pretty good job of having defined classes but allowing you to customize their roles how you wanted. Though I think Warrior and Rogues where way to similiar, and I generally liked DA2 'skills' setup better, though I disliked how forced DA2 did things so much weapon wise.

 

So, with that, I'd say more like DA2 then DAO, but more DAO/PnP where your not limited by what you can use. The very fact mages use armor-armor in there world I think bodes well for us in that we'll probably be getting a more flexible DA like setup then 2nd edition was. Seriously I loved BG series, but that ruleset was freakishly linear, only really trumped by some over seas cRPG where your only allowed a specific weapon depending on class... guh which is so horrible.

Edited October 1, 2012 by Adhin

[TrashMan]

I had a thief in ToEE and it was very usefull.

Playinga Pathfinder PnP session now and hte party thief is very usefull.

 

Agian, it's not the concept that is the problem. It's the execution.

 

A wizzard can harldy be as good at sneaking as a rouge wihout watign 2 slots (levitate to make no noise and invisibility to not be seen). He taks 2 slots to match something a thief can easily do wihotu wasting limited resources. And that's without going itno all the other things a thief can do.

 

Can you make a mage that can do most the things a thief can do? Yes. But good luck in him being usefull in other ways.

 

 

Getting trough traps by just sending people in and healing?

only works in 2 cases:

- you have instantanius healing. Just imaggine if healing was far slower and more difficult. Suddenly that approach doesn't look so hot

- the trap isn't insta-kill

 

And a collary to both, if you can rest anytime, anywhere.

Edited October 1, 2012 by TrashMan

[Merin]

trough traps by just sending people in and healing?

only works in 2 cases:

 

I only need the one case - the case that exists.

 

Infinity Engine games. And pretty much any other RPG game with rogues short of, I think, Bard's Tale.

 

Traps have been boring to me until DA:O, where I played the rogue for other reasons and suddenly I saw I was getting XP for disarming all the traps in my way. Was that in other games? Sure. But the rogue was being played for story reasons, so I had the rogue as my MC, and suddenly I paid attention to the traps in my way.

 

After that, replays of DA:O? I ran through traps. It's quicker and more fun for me.

 

Now the Bard's Tale series... there having a rogue was worthwhile to me. It was turn-based, and when you found a chest the options popped up in front of you and it took no more time or effort to hit the D button than the O button. Also - Thief of Fate. (ancient spoiler) You kinda needed that thief to win.

 

---

 

In over twenty years of table-top role-playing, I've rarely seen rogues and rarely seen traps. I guess somehow the groups I played in just dodge the issue.

 

And then I joined a group playing Pathfinder, people I hadn't played with before. And I finally saw the group who did that sort of stuff...

 

well, strike that - I had played with most of them once before, my last attempt to enjoy 3E. The 6 hour session of the game consisted almost entirely of setting up camp, rotating through the watches and dealing with random encounters on our journey, and then rolling on random tables for treasure after the encounters. I had NEVER played D&D like that before, and that was my only session of that game.

 

Back to the Pathfinder game - the guy running the game was great, so I enjoyed it despite the rules overall. But there was a guy playing the traditional rogue... and man did moving through locations become a slog with everyroom, every door, being checked for traps. SLOOOOOOOOW.

 

As an aside - the group was full of munchkin gamers, the kind who spend a good portion of the game explaining to you why their character could kill your character? Well, I played a fun RP build that was NOT combat effective (I had poisons and fire bombs, and half the stuff we faced was immune to poison and fire so...) but, after nearly a year of playing, I was the only player who's character hadn't died. I learned something new about munchkin'ers - they have deathwishes. Whether that was due to wanting to make EvEn MoRe pOwErFuL characters or what, I don't know... but the rogue player? He was on his third rogue before I moved.

Edited October 1, 2012 by Merin

[Bill Gates' Son]

It isn't a goal of ours to limit a character's combat role by class, but it is a goal to make every character class have one role that it's easy for them to excel in. For example, most IE games (being derived from AD&D 2nd Edition until IWD2) effectively threw thief characters into the garbage bin, combat-wise.

 

ZOMG wasn't this the truth. Thieves were basically pointless in pnp 2nd edition D&D anyway. Need to sneak? Get the wizard with invisibility 10' radius. Clerics got Find Traps as a 2nd level spell, and it was 100% effective whereas your rogue actually had to search and roll dice. Backstab damage only multiplied the base weapon damage and was far less worthwhile than having a good strength. And they got screwed on AC and HP.

 

 

As far as I remember, everybody went fighter/thief (either by multiclass or dual class), so thieves were still useful.

[Sylvius the Mad]

It isn't a goal of ours to limit a character's combat role by class, but it is a goal to make every character class have one role that it's easy for them to excel in. For example, most IE games (being derived from AD&D 2nd Edition until IWD2) effectively threw thief characters into the garbage bin, combat-wise.

1. I love this answer.

2. The Thief rules in 2nd edition AD&D basically demanded dual-classing to make the character viable at higher levels. Thief-Mages worked very well (non-magical stealth was remarkably handy for a Mage with Illusion as his prohibited school). That said, Thieves could still be effective combatants in BG because of how over-powered archery was.

[Vampero]

If the game is going to be soloable (as we heard from Josh Sawyer previously) then I'd assume Tim's recent Reddit response is basically clarifying the reason for using a class based system and not specifically saying you will be pigeon holed by your class.

 

For example if you want to play a mage you can perfectly fine finish the game as a mage on your own. If you choose to bring a full party then you might want a tanking character, just like you would have done in BG you pick up an npc to tank for your mage.

 

I don't see what the big deal is here, we all know how hard or easy it is to play any class in the IE games and what 6 character party composition is like. Tank using a cleric with appropriate spells selected, dps with a rogue or mage, heal with a druid. There are plenty of combinations and knowing which character you might aim to pick up when you decide to play as a bow-wielding rogue is useful and by no means limits your ability to play that rogue.

 

I agree and that is the way it should be.

[NOK222]

It isn't a goal of ours to limit a character's combat role by class, but it is a goal to make every character class have one role that it's easy for them to excel in. For example, most IE games (being derived from AD&D 2nd Edition until IWD2) effectively threw thief characters into the garbage bin, combat-wise.

1. I love this answer.

2. The Thief rules in 2nd edition AD&D basically demanded dual-classing to make the character viable at higher levels. Thief-Mages worked very well (non-magical stealth was remarkably handy for a Mage with Illusion as his prohibited school). That said, Thieves could still be effective combatants in BG because of how over-powered archery was.

 

Yo Silvius, guess who got permabanned from BS?

 

Anyways, will some classes be better at talking than fighting? Or is the "avoiding combat" thing you guys said universal?

Edited October 1, 2012 by NKKKK

[Merin]

2. The Thief rules in 2nd edition AD&D basically demanded dual-classing to make the character viable at higher levels. Thief-Mages worked very well (non-magical stealth was remarkably handy for a Mage with Illusion as his prohibited school). That said, Thieves could still be effective combatants in BG because of how over-powered archery was.

 

And this is the biggest problem with every edition of D&D save the much maligned 4E (and, hopefully, Next - which, while nothing like 4E, has the devs constantly talking about this very point) - every class should stand alone as fun, competent, competitive and playable in it's own right... especially in a game as combat-heavy as D&D... and D&D never really managed to get this right, save one time (almost - not perfectly) and that's when they get slapped silly by a loud minority of their "fans."

 

IF (big if here) a game is going to have combat be, at most, 33% of the content... then lack of balance in the classes is not really that big an issue. Or if you can avoid 67% of the combat fairly easily with a combat-poor build.

 

But if combat is going to be the second biggest thing that a player is going to do in the cRPG (the biggest is almost always WALKING from place to place... grrr) then that is where the rules have to be focused.

 

If Obsidian comes out and says that combat will always be a minority of the player's actions in the game (discounting travel time!) then I say screw class balance for Project Eternity.

 

Who wants to take bets that they are going to say that? I'll give you good odds.

Edited October 1, 2012 by Merin

[TrashMan]

trough traps by just sending people in and healing?

only works in 2 cases:

 

I only need the one case - the case that exists.

 

 

Wrong - you need a case where it is enabled.

 

Because if you can't heal, you can't use that tactic. If the trap immediately kill a cahracte,r oyu can't send them in either (unless you can spam ressurection, whihc you generally can't)

[Merin]

I only need the one case - the case that exists.

Wrong - you need a case where it is enabled.

Because if you can't heal, you can't use that tactic. If the trap immediately kill a cahracte,r oyu can't send them in either (unless you can spam ressurection, whihc you generally can't)

 

But... I could use that tactic.

 

I'm not quite sure what you are telling me I'm wrong on.

 

I did it all the time. All. The. Time.

 

So it worked in 100% of my experiences.

 

Giving me hypotheticals on how it could have NOT worked is irrelevant to my point - in Infinity Engine games, rogues were excessively unnecessary. You took them because you WANTED them, not because you at all needed them.

 

----

 

Even, for a second, ignoring the fact that you are telling me that my example was wrong even though it happened...

 

... and going with your argument about insta-kill traps and no healing ...

 

What game is that? How popular is it?

[Sylvius the Mad]

 

Giving me hypotheticals on how it could have NOT worked is irrelevant to my point - in Infinity Engine games, rogues were excessively unnecessary. You took them because you WANTED them, not because you at all needed them.

Thieves did benefit some types of parties. A mage-heavy party, particularly a low-level one, did tend to get killed by springing traps, so disarming those was valuable (traps on chests seemed especially deadly).

[TrashMan]

I only need the one case - the case that exists.

Wrong - you need a case where it is enabled.

Because if you can't heal, you can't use that tactic. If the trap immediately kill a cahracter, you can't send them in either (unless you can spam ressurection, whihc you generally can't)

 

But... I could use that tactic.

 

I'm not quite sure what you are telling me I'm wrong on.

 

I did it all the time. All. The. Time.

 

So it worked in 100% of my experiences.

 

Do you have a reading disability?

 

We're taking of how to make a system that works, and you keep repeating ad nausum how one of the old systems didn't work (for you).

 

And mind you there were a few insta-kill traps in BG.

I specificly remember one in spellhold. The walls turned anyone passing trough into chunky bits.

[Sylvius the Mad]

 

And this is the biggest problem with every edition of D&D save the much maligned 4E (and, hopefully, Next - which, while nothing like 4E, has the devs constantly talking about this very point) - every class should stand alone as fun, competent, competitive and playable in it's own right... especially in a game as combat-heavy as D&D... and D&D never really managed to get this right, save one time (almost - not perfectly) and that's when they get slapped silly by a loud minority of their "fans."

I would only agree with that in a system where a character was necessarily stuck with his class. If a Thief was always a Thief and there was nothing he could do about it, then yes, the Thief had better be fun to play.

 

But that wasn't always true in AD&D or 3E D&D. 3E's multiclassing rules basically reduced Rogue to something you'd take a few levels in for the skill points or backstabbing. And in 1st and 2nd edition, dual-classing was available (to humans only, for no reason I can explain) to add a new class whenever the old one began to offer diminishing returns.

 

However, I will absolutely not agree with the premise that "every class should stand alone as fun, competent, competitive and playable in it's own right" at every level of advancement. One of the strengths of the early editions (which was, to some degree, removed in 3E) was that some classes were more effective at low levels, while others were more effective at high levels.

[NOK222]

at every level of advancement

Go into depth why you're against this.

Edited October 1, 2012 by NKKKK

[Merin]

However, I will absolutely not agree with the premise that "every class should stand alone as fun, competent, competitive and playable in it's own right" at every level of advancement. One of the strengths of the early editions (which was, to some degree, removed in 3E) was that some classes were more effective at low levels, while others were more effective at high levels.

 

But this is a matter of opinion, and one we can easily disagree on.

 

Is that a bug or a feature of AD&D? You say feature, I say bug.

[Merin]

Do you have a reading disability?

 

We're taking of how to make a system that works, and you keep repeating ad nausum how one of the old systems didn't work (for you).

 

Taking the bait only so much as taking a second to point it out. Ah, bait.

 

Uhm... we as in "the whole thread" or we as in "you and me?"

 

Because I wasn't talking about "how to make a system that works" - I was talking about past experiences. Follow -

 

'J.E. Sawyer' - "most IE games (being derived from AD&D 2nd Edition until IWD2) effectively threw thief characters into the garbage bin, combat-wise."

 

I almost never (I think I fiddled once or twice with a fighter/rogue halfing or a mage/rogue elf once or twice) had a thief in my party in the D&D games. Not only could you have other characters handle the duties (or ignore the duties... oooh, traps, run through them and heal) but it was effectively a wasted slot - a second cleric or wizard would do you much more good, and even a second fighter (one more tank or an archer) was a better choice.

 

(more personal stories on playing rogues)

 

Ah, yes, Josh starts on about thieves in IE games based on AD&D 2nd ED... and me relating my experiences.

 

I had a thief in ToEE and it was very usefull.

Playinga Pathfinder PnP session now and hte party thief is very usefull.

(...)

Getting trough traps by just sending people in and healing?

only works in 2 cases:

- you have instantanius healing. Just imaggine if healing was far slower and more difficult. Suddenly that approach doesn't look so hot

- the trap isn't insta-kill

 

And a collary to both, if you can rest anytime, anywhere.

I only need the one case - the case that exists.

 

Infinity Engine games. And pretty much any other RPG game with rogues short of, I think, Bard's Tale.

 

(snipped out many more personal anecdotes)

 

You relating some of your experiences with thieves, and then saying what I did in those IE games can only work in certain cases. And I respond that I only need one case - the fact that it happened when I did it. It is like saying "what are the odds that a giraffe would evolve?" and answering "100% - because they did."

 

And then I share more stories of my experiences playing D&D (or D&D clones, like Pathfinder) and the lack of thieves, and then I branch on a tangent about munchkins....

 

Anyway...

 

I only need the one case - the case that exists.

Wrong - you need a case where it is enabled.

Because if you can't heal, you can't use that tactic. If the trap immediately kill a cahracte,r oyu can't send them in either (unless you can spam ressurection, whihc you generally can't)

 

But... I could use that tactic.

 

I'm not quite sure what you are telling me I'm wrong on.

 

I did it all the time. All. The. Time.

 

So it worked in 100% of my experiences.

 

Here you told me that I was wrong, that my saying that it could happen because it did happen is not correct because of....

you know, I really don't know what you are trying to tell me I am wrong about. I think we are holding two separate conversations at this point. That's probably the problem.

 

going with your argument about insta-kill traps and no healing ...

 

What game is that? How popular is it?

And mind you there were a few insta-kill traps in BG.

I specificly remember one in spellhold. The walls turned anyone passing trough into chunky bits.

 

Huh. I can't say I remember that... but if I did pass through a wall that exploded me in ways I couldn't rez, I probably did exactly what I did everytime the game insta-killed me with spells and magic that you couldn't rez from... reloaded. And, I'm sure everyone agrees, there were far more "insta-kill and no rez" spells than there were traps.

 

But there was healing in BG2. And if I really wanted to take the time, I could have cast "Find Traps" and probably made my "trap-springer" as immune to potential trap damage as possible then sprung it. Or avoided it - I'm sure whatever was behind the insta-kill trap wasn't "win the game / finish the story" necessary.

 

But BG2 was quite popular, I'll give you that one easily.

 

---

 

In any case, I think I'm comprehending you just fine - but I think you ignored what my point was for your own. And it is absolutely fine to make your own point, conversations shouldn't be one-sided...

 

but this kind of all started when you said I was "wrong" on my point. Which, empiraclly, I cannot be.

 

My tactics worked for me in the instances where they worked for me, and my evidence of such is that they worked for me.

 

That is true regardless of what tweaks or fixes you propose to fix my ability to have those tactics work.

 

Again, I think we splintered into separate conversations.

 

To try and clear that up -

 

YES, you can fix the system. And, YES, the parameters needed to be as they were for me to have succeeded with no rogue as I did.

But also - the giraffe exists as it does.

Edited October 1, 2012 by Merin

[TimMc]

I would rather have classes, and instead have stat distribution and skill investments determine how your characters play out.

 

eg pump loads into strength so you can wear heavy armour and use heavy weapons - you now have a warrior. Pump some into intelligence so can use magical buffs, and now you have a paladin.

 

I cannot see that happening though.