The Gaming Den

I think most designers would say yes, but the way they go about it is wrought with failure. This is because, while games like 3.5 suggest how many encounters to have in a day, in play there is no consistency in the wild. Unless you can insert a mechanic that forces players to only rest at certain intervals of activity having a per day recharge mechanic isn't going to cut it. Having an encounter based recharge is also problematic because you have to define an encounter and not all encounters are of the same length.

Are there any systems out there that balance limited and unlimited use abilities well and how do they do it? Off the top of my head I can't think of any.

You mean like Class A has only limited-use abilities and Class B has only unlimited-use abilities? (speaking in the generic, of course)
Objectively? No. (at least, not without a very tortured -or- vague-to-the-point-of-meaningless definition of "balanced")
Within a very specific set of conditions? Sure. But, to the extent that you have to define those conditions, what you have is something that boils down to nothing more than a board game, not an RPG.

Basically, if you're gonna have both limited- and unlimited-use abilities in a game, all your characters need to have both.

you start talking about things like wizard casting a fireball that is limited in use to a fighter swinging a sword which is unlimited in use, then go into the 5MWD....

so i am confused by what you mean at all.

EPDL (encounters per day/level) is a stupid idea as the players palying the game will decide for themselves and shouldnt be forced upon how many fights they want to have for a system to work, BUT if they want to go along with it a mechanic CAN exist to "force" then into going along with it....IF they choose to accept that "rule" and to actually go along with it.

obviously it only works sometimes and not in a survival mode like a dungeon. this would be as simple as a fatigue system where there is NO other way than TIME itself to cancel the fatigue. going into the future does not "heal" the fatigue, only living through the required time would remove the fatigue and allow you to continue on.

which means old school play would be involved where having and finding a safe spot to hide in to rest in a dungeon is needed, and in some way would have to ber provided by the DM so as not to completely remove SoD for those that arent game mechanicists. (i hate the work gamist, it jsut seems wrong, so this means those who accept a game mechanic as-is for the sake of the game and dont let it remove their SoD, like say healing surges in 4th that magically non-magically healed people and they were OK with it and kept their SoD.)

Yes, it is really trivially easy.

Some super easy ways to do it:

Limited Use abilities have a regen of 2 rounds of not doing anything, and you get 2 of them, they do 2 damage each.

Unlimited Use abilities do 1.5 damage each.

Half your enemies have 4HP, the other half have 6HP.

//

Version 2: Some of your classes are Snowscapers and some of them are Wizards without Planar Binding/Gate/Create Undead.

Version 3: Some of your characters are Snowscapers and some of your characters are Soldiers/Elemental Siphons.

What you really mean is limited use or unlimited use attack abilities. And, yes the answer is yes. Starcraft and Starcraft 2 has consistently used these. The oracle can spend 25 energy to be able to use a high power attack for a limited duration of time. Other air units can always attack all the time and have no energy bar for that ability.

As Kaelik said it is trivially easy to create classes with both limited and unlimited uses, it simply requires that you have a solid design of your game, i.e. you define how many average hits per death you want monsters to have, how long you want combats to generally last and so forth. Once you've defined that you just build the classes and their abilities to fit within that framework.

Bill Bisco: Isometric Imp wrote:What you really mean is limited use or unlimited use attack abilities. And, yes the answer is yes. Starcraft and Starcraft 2 has consistently used these.

I think the context is in terms of RPGs, where you can often choose when and where and how much you're going to fight.

For an RPG, you don't control how often or how long characters adventure, you don't control how many or how challenging opponents the characters face. Noone does, because those issues are partially determined by Mr. Cavern's presented scenarios and partially determined by player choices.

But as Kaelik pointed out, you do control the stats on the enemies on Team Monster. And that is enough that you could make theoretically perfectly balanced limited and unlimited use abilities if you wanted to. More likely however, you don't want to, because you can use the limitations on limited use abilities to encourage certain kinds of behavior that you want to encourage, and use modest rewards in overall effectiveness as a carrot to promote such.

-Username17

FrankTrollman wrote:For an RPG, you don't control how often or how long characters adventure, you don't control how many or how challenging opponents the characters face. No one does, because those issues are partially determined by Mr. Cavern's presented scenarios and partially determined by player choices.

Wait, what? The player doesn't control something because he partially controls something?

Hogarth..

The You in Frank's statement is the "Game Designer"
We are talking about game design. So, he's saying that a game designer cannot control how many or how challenging opponents are going to be.

The MC determines which monsters he puts in front of the players, and how well they are going to be played.
The players determine if they are going to face any given encounters, depending on how they play.

Well, knowing how many enemies, and how strong enemies are meant to be, I would think is pretty damn important to determine. It's the lack of an encounter system, that I find to be a fair dealbreaker to GM a respective system. As can be kinda hard to run reliably challenging encounters otherwise, if not sure what is proper for any given situation.

Though Designer might not have complete control due to variable factors, still find it worthwhile to try and reign in what control you can, to limit the damage it might have on the game.

Aryxbez wrote:It's the lack of an encounter system, that I find to be a fair dealbreaker to GM a respective system. As can be kinda hard to run reliably challenging encounters otherwise, if not sure what is proper for any given situation.

so you are saying 4th edition is the only one that got it right for "D&D" since it is the only one with an encounter system?

and yet many people still play 3rd with its broken ECL/LA/CL and such, as well as TSR editions.

When the limited-class has to stop, what does the unlimited-class?

If the unlimited-class has also to stop because she needs the help of other characters, then the unlimited-class is shit.

If the unlimited-class can continue and finish the dungeon all by herself, then the limited-class is shit.

Either way, classes aren't balanced.

GâtFromKI wrote:When the limited-class has to stop, what does the unlimited-class?

If the unlimited-class has also to stop because she needs the help of other characters, then the limited-class is shit.

If the unlimited-class can continue and finish the dungeon all by herself, then the limited-class is shit.

Either way, classes aren't balanced.

You are fundamentally missing the point of many balance systems. Most of the examples presented in this thread are per encounter vs unlimited. So right off the fucking bat, if the limited runs out for the day, what the unlimited does is keep fighting then enemy that is still alive and right in front of you, and if they both end up doing 15 HP damage at the end, it doesn't seem like a valid complaint that you were mean.

shadzar wrote:so you are saying 4th edition is the only one that got it right for "D&D" since it is the only one with an encounter system?

and yet many people still play 3rd with its broken ECL/LA/CL and such, as well as TSR editions.

What the fuck do you think Challenge Rating and Encounter Level are if not an encounter system?

Oh yes, cooldown-classes can be balanced with unlimited-classes. And cooldown-classes are a shitty idea in a tabletop RPG - it's a cool idea when a computer tracks the cooldown, and a shitty idea in tabletop context.

But it works in tabletop if the cooldown is, for no explained reason, "until the end of the encounter". Except classes still aren't balanced during long encounter (battle, half-life-like scenarios...), and therefore it is as shitty as creating unlimited- and limited-classes together.


The main point is: it works in a PVP-computer context, because while the abilities of one player are on cooldown/while one player is regenerating his mana/whatever, the other player is taking advantage of this. In a cooperative context, it is far harder to make it balanced (players control the pace of encounters), and in cooperative-tabletop context, it simply doesn't work.

Kaelik wrote:

shadzar wrote:so you are saying 4th edition is the only one that got it right for "D&D" since it is the only one with an encounter system?

and yet many people still play 3rd with its broken ECL/LA/CL and such, as well as TSR editions.

What the fuck do you think Challenge Rating and Encounter Level are if not an encounter system?

a joke. poor attempt with shitty numbers and no forethought into the fact that the numbers dont work as several of you people have shown in the past.

the encounter system in 4th works, it has a stable system. it just sucks from a game standpoint. the numbers working and the game not misses the point of game design. 3.x the numbers just dont work for that subsystem.

i cropped his quote off to short and didnt notice. i meant to include the next sentence as well.

As can be kinda hard to run reliably challenging encounters otherwise, if not sure what is proper for any given situation.

so even with the screwed up system, it doesnt help to do what this part says.

GâtFromKI wrote:Oh yes, cooldown-classes can be balanced with unlimited-classes. And cooldown-classes are a shitty idea in a tabletop RPG - it's a cool idea when a computer tracks the cooldown, and a shitty idea in tabletop context.

But it works in tabletop if the cooldown is, for no explained reason, "until the end of the encounter". Except classes still aren't balanced during long encounter (battle, half-life-like scenarios...), and therefore it is as shitty as creating unlimited- and limited-classes together.


The main point is: it works in a PVP-computer context, because while the abilities of one player are on cooldown/while one player is regenerating his mana/whatever, the other player is taking advantage of this. In a cooperative context, it is far harder to make it balanced (players control the pace of encounters), and in cooperative-tabletop context, it simply doesn't work.

You need to learn to read, and frankly, do your homework.

Cooldowns can be based on lots of things, and they don't have to be time based. Nothing you said as a criticism of cooldown classes in any way at all applies to most cooldown classes actually used in TTRPGS. Let's go through them:

1) Waah, I don't want to have to track my cooldowns:
Does not apply to: Warblade, Swordsage, Elemental Siphon
Does apply to: (arguably) Crusader.

2) Does not remain balanced across long encounters:
Does not apply to: Warblade, Swordsage, Elemental Siphon, Crusader
Does apply to: nothing that wasn't written by a dumbass.

3) People can take advantage when other people's cooldowns are on. But that doesn't work in TTRPG.

Well A) Why wouldn't it. If the PCs want to try to take advantage of the BBEGs cooldowns being on, why is that a bad thing? B) Who cares? Just because one reason people use cooldowns in some games doesn't apply has nothing to do with the actual game usage

Cooldowns are also used to limit power and to force variety in usage. Those are totally valid goals that work just fine in a TTRPG with cooldowns.

Kaelik wrote: Well A) Why wouldn't it.

Yeah, that capability is a big part of the reason why dragons and fiendish opponents are two of the nastier creature types. They have mobility/escape options/gtfo abilities that can help them bug out and come back in a few rounds rather than face tank your Acid Cloud like a moron.

Kaelik wrote:Well A) Why wouldn't it. If the PCs want to try to take advantage of the BBEGs cooldowns being on, why is that a bad thing?

It could work.

Let's say your BEEG has two lieutenants and 10 minions, everyone has cooldown ability, the DM has to track something like 20 cooldown. It makes your idea shittier than any idea from Mike Mearls or SKR; but from a balance theoretical standpoint, it could work.

Or, alternatively, the players track their own damn cool-downs and you don't stat every NPC as being cool-down based. There are already guidelines for things like typical monster organization and likewise as a game designer you have control over what sorts of critters pop out in swarms when people fire up their summoning spells. I would argue that slapping a "suggested minion" tag on creatures whose abilities are perpetual or once per day is a far less fundamentally stupid idea than limiting flunkies to 1 hit point, so your Mearls comp can fuck right off.

GâtFromKI wrote:

Kaelik wrote:Well A) Why wouldn't it. If the PCs want to try to take advantage of the BBEGs cooldowns being on, why is that a bad thing?

It could work.

Let's say your BEEG has two lieutenants and 10 minions, everyone has cooldown ability, the DM has to track something like 20 cooldown. It makes your idea shittier than any idea from Mike Mearls or SKR; but from a balance theoretical standpoint, it could work.

Let's say you aren't retarded, so that any system which involves 10 minions in one fight doesn't give minions cooldown times.

You retarded asshat, we get it, you have a personal vendetta against cooldown timers for absolutely not reason, it doesn't mean games with cooldown timers have to be designed like shit just so you can make a point.

Let's say the BBEG is a fucking Necromancer. Oh shit, he has 10 skeletons which all together might represent a threat to one PC alone, or might not. Solution: Play it like every game that allows this already does, the BBEG is some kind of real monster or character with real rules, and the minions are really shitty skeletons with nothing but a basic attack.

You know, like it already is in 3e.

You phrase it like you have no idea what beautiful symmetries you're crushing beneath your iron boots, Kaelik.

What happens if you find yourself fighting 10 level 1 Necromancers?

I'd try to standardize the refresh times so you only needed to keep track of who had already used their recharge powers since the last refresh cycle.

Yes.

Foxwarrior wrote:You phrase it like you have no idea what beautiful symmetries you're crushing beneath your iron boots, Kaelik.

What happens if you find yourself fighting 10 level 1 Necromancers?

You discover that they are not actually a threat, when you nuke them all with a single fireball and they never get an action.

Wait, Kaelik, now I'm even more confused. Has your ability to remember context degraded to chatbot levels?

Or are you just saying that boring minions who can't do anything fun should get extra buckets of HP?