Game balance method: having to have different engine types

[xechnao]

Most games use one system mechanic. For example D20 system (a linear RNG plus board positioning), Shadowrun (combat pool), WoD (combat pool), etch.

What if a system used for balance reasons two different mechanics?
For example, 3.x D&D is prone to min/maxing regarding stats and builds. The bard class is generally weaker than full casters.
But what if you were able to choose to use combat pool options that can reflect the various different abilities you can combine and thus giving the advantage to pull off some tactics and strategies in the face of the more specialized classes?

[TheFlatline]

I'll respond here...

What you're suggesting makes no sense. Are you suggesting in a game like D&D to have Shadowrun's combat pool for Bards to make them suck less?

The reason why Bards suck is because they don't fulfill any unique role in the adventuring party, and thus their abilities will always be weak or uninteresting from a mechanical standpoint. At least, the D&D bard will always be this way.

RPGs have been moving away from the paradigm of un-unified systems for years. Hell, D&D is one of the aberrations these days in that you need a pile of various dice to play. Most games are focusing their systems in a D10 or D6 focus. Integrating 2 different RNG systems into the core rules of one game would be a nightmare to both learn and write.

[K]

Specialization always trumps generalization, and it does more so when you assume a party of 4-6 specialists (+4-6 specialist cohorts, or +X specialist summons).

This is why Bards as a "generalist" concept will never work, because it's very easy for all their their general roles to be taken by a specialist in your own party ().

[TheFlatline]

That's a far more succinct way of putting what I was trying to say. Dice mechanics aren't part of it.

[xechnao]

Well if you put it that way you can say that Bards can be specialized in being versatile. So if you manage to give versatility some gaming value it can make more sense.

I guess what I am saying in the OP is too rough to make any sense, especially in this field where people have strong presumptions. To be able to talk about it seriously it should be on matters of implementation rather than as a vague guideline or indication.

My fault here.

[TheFlatline]

That's the point. Versatility *isn't* mechanically as powerful as specialization.

If you're a bard, you can't heal like a cleric, and you can't blast like a mage. Your skills aren't up to a Rogue with sneak attack, and to deal with those crappy sacrifices you get some general buffs that aren't particularly entertaining.

The only way you could make a non-specialist specialist is if you allowed him to enhance an already-existing specialist. So if you could make the mage extra dakka , or the cleric extra heal-y, or the fighter extra choppy (god I sound like an Ork now), as part of your main function, you might see bards work better.

In 3.x, for example, if your 10th level ability was to allow a mage to either quicken or maximize, you'd probably see every wizard with his own personal bard/PR representative. If you could give fighters the ability to crit without confirmation, or give them say a +5 to confirm the crit, you'd see them around a lot more.

I could see a bard working as a tactical centerpoint of a party, handing out extremely potent buffs/debuffs one or two at a time, but then you've moved him beyond a non-specialist specialist and into something else.

[Murtak]

That's the point. Versatility *isn't* mechanically as powerful as specialization.

Incorrect. Versatility pays off in defense and when you can not choose your attack. Specialization only pays off in offense, and then only if you can actually use your chosen attack. And even then specialization is not necessarily better than versatility. Remember, your average result does not matter, your worst result matters. If you are unable to deal with an encounter you lose. Whether you dominated all the other encounters or just scraped by does not matter.

DnD bards don't suck because they are versatile instead of specialized. They suck because full casters are obscenely overpowered and because the powerful bard tricks feel like cheating. Healing worse than a cleric? Who cares, healing is handled via wands or using about three specific spells. Sneak attacking worse than a rogue? Who cares, wizards are crappy at dealing damage too and manage to be overpowered at the same time. General buffs? Why use them? Either you stack up a couple of feats and class abilities to turn them into giant buffs or you use your powerful class features. Glibness, Fascinate, turning enemies into allies - that sort of thing.

Heck, you want to talk about power in DnD? Well, the most powerful classes are the wizard, cleric and druid - and they are powerful because they have an answer to everything and anything that might happen. They are powerful because they can afford to spend feats and wealth on versatility instead of having to specialize in just a single attack. If you are looking at DnD, versatility is power, specialization is a weakness.

[Ice9]

If you are unable to deal with an encounter you lose. Whether you dominated all the other encounters or just scraped by does not matter.

If by "deal with" you mean survive, then yes. But not everyone needs to be good at every task - someone who kicks ass 70% of the time and hides in a corner the other 30% is better than someone who makes a piddly contribution 100% of the time.

And while combat is something everybody can help with, a lot of tasks aren't, so there's really no benefit to be almost as good as the most competent person - stealth, obstacle negation, sometimes even socializing.

[ubernoob]

Heck, you want to talk about power in DnD? Well, the most powerful classes are the wizard, cleric and druid - and they are powerful because they have an answer to everything and anything that might happen. They are powerful because they can afford to spend feats and wealth on versatility instead of having to specialize in just a single attack. If you are looking at DnD, versatility is power, specialization is a weakness.

Actually wizards are powerful because they are powerful. Evard's Black tentacles and solid fog beat pretty much everything for a while, and that's not versatility. That's two fucking spells. Versatility is not power. Being able to win every single time because your spells/class features/whatever are good enough to win every single time is power. Power is power. Versatility is versatility. Now, being able to APPLY your power is versatility, and by that definition a stock wizard that prepares nothing but EBT and solid fog in his fourth level slots is pretty fucking versatile.

[xechnao]

I see versatility like this.

Specialized classes: you can do one powerfull action every round. only one action means if your enemy manages to hold his ground he can figure out how to take care of you.

Versatile classes: you can do more than one action each round but their total power output is lower than the power of a specialized class action. However you can choose to do more actions and thus you are more resistant to enemy winning strategies.

EDIT: this has nothing to do with D&D's rules. Just something theoric to see if there is a way to have two different values: namely versatility and specilization.

[RandomCasualty2]

Basically versatility characters suffer from action restrictions. In other words, you have more actions you can do, but you don't gain any additional combat actions to actually use that versatility. So even if you can cast cure moderate wounds and stinking cloud, you can't do them both at the same time, making the guy throwing cloud kill and cure critical wounds better than you.

Basically from a combat standpoint to make versatile characters a possibility you have to give them more actions. In effect a fighter/mage/cleric should be able to toss one weak spell mage spell, cast one weak cleric spell and make one weak attack, and so on... all in the same round.

Rogues synergize well because you can sneak attack in the same round you're swinging a sword or throwing a scorching ray. Other classes need to basically be able to do the same thing.

[xechnao]

Basically versatility characters suffer from action restrictions. In other words, you have more actions you can do, but you don't gain any additional combat actions to actually use that versatility. So even if you can cast cure moderate wounds and stinking cloud, you can't do them both at the same time, making the guy throwing cloud kill and cure critical wounds better than you.

Basically from a combat standpoint to make versatile characters a possibility you have to give them more actions. In effect a fighter/mage/cleric should be able to toss one weak spell mage spell, cast one weak cleric spell and make one weak attack, and so on... all in the same round.

Rogues synergize well because you can sneak attack in the same round you're swinging a sword or throwing a scorching ray. Other classes need to basically be able to do the same thing.

Yeah, this is what I was saying myself too. Sorry if I wasnt clear enough. This is what I insinuated in the OP.

[Parthenon]

In terms of the OP, isn't one of the problems with the current system the fact that not everyone uses the same engine type at the moment, and so the whole party stops to rest as soon as one person runs out of juice?

And if so, then how would adding more engine types make the game run better or smoother? If one player had to draw attacks from a deck of cards while another uses power points and another uses Vancian casting, then how can they interact and support each other?

For example, combat pools like WoD are greatly benefited by ganging up on enemies, so it helps to have the whole party aid another. Whereas the archer using cards might be hurt by helping others or being in close combat, so at least one of these two has to screw themselves over.

[Murtak]

Actually wizards are powerful because they are powerful. Evard's Black tentacles and solid fog beat pretty much everything for a while, and that's not versatility. That's two fucking spells. Versatility is not power. Being able to win every single time because your spells/class features/whatever are good enough to win every single time is power.

But it's not specialization. Wizards do not specialize. Not even specialists specialize. Pretty much anyone will tell you that the wizard's job in 3E is to cast a single spell that dominates the encounter and to have as many of these spells available for as many encounter types as possible. That is versatility. Specialization is something like pumping feat after feat into blasting until you kill everything affected by fire in a single attack. And that character will suck. He'd suck even if blasting did not suck to begin with.

Power is power. Versatility is versatility. Now, being able to APPLY your power is versatility, and by that definition a stock wizard that prepares nothing but EBT and solid fog in his fourth level slots is pretty fucking versatile.

Why two spells then? Why not just EBT? Oh, right, doesn't work against small opponents, or very strong ones. Why not just Solid Fog? Can be burned down? Doesn't work against incorporeal foes? Good wizards prepare spells to deal with as many different foes and obstacles as possible, right? Why? To be versatile. A specific spell getting prepared multiple times means the spell itself can deal with many types of foes. But it is not specialization. Specialization is pumping resources in one ability to the detriment of other abilities. And wizards don't do that.