Annoying Game Questions You Want Answered

[hyzmarca]

It's a truism that the more options a player has, the harder it is to balance them. That's true whether those options are class, skill, or race.

[RadiantPhoenix]

Having a consistent number is more balanced than a variable number.

See, I have a hard time accepting that as the claim, because it's facially incorrect. That theory says that Behilder Mage is a well-balanced class (regular, predictable progression). Not only that, but Beholder Mage is somehow more "balanced to level" than any possible skill-based system.

Beholder Mage is better balanced than it would be if it was based on, say, your Spot check.

[fectin]

Having a consistent number is more balanced than a variable number.

See, I have a hard time accepting that as the claim, because it's facially incorrect. That theory says that Behilder Mage is a well-balanced class (regular, predictable progression). Not only that, but Beholder Mage is somehow more "balanced to level" than any possible skill-based system.

Beholder Mage is better balanced than it would be if it was based on, say, your Spot check.

Better than the warlock I presented above?

[DSMatticus]

Having a consistent number is more balanced than a variable number.

See, I have a hard time accepting that as the claim, because it's facially incorrect. That theory says that Behilder Mage is a well-balanced class (regular, predictable progression). Not only that, but Beholder Mage is somehow more "balanced to level" than any possible skill-based system.

Fectin, you are being a dumbass. Please stop.

Let's say there is a hypothetical class called the fectinmancer. A fectinmancer's class features scale in power based on a number called the coefficient of stupidity. If all else is equal, allowing fectinmancers of the same level to have different coefficients of stupidity by definition makes the game less balanced. Because you added a slider to the class and the slider isn't fucking balanced.

Your argument is that because paladins and wizards are both caster classes and they aren't balanced with respect to eachother we can't actually have balance discussions about how having different fectinmancers of the same level perform at different power levels is bullshit. That is not a compelling argument. It is born out of willful stupidity and pretzel logic and says absolutely nothing about the topic at hand. Congratulations on your oh-so-very-keen observation that 3.5 is not balanced. Here is your cookie. Will you leave now?

[fectin]

"I have a shitty design that is shitty, and I named it for you?" Clever.
Here, I'll do it too: the DSM Paragon of Balance: at level one, casts one first level spell. At level 2, casts any spell at will as a free action. THANK GOD FOR LEVELS AMIRITE!!!1!

Idiot.

[RadiantPhoenix]

See, I have a hard time accepting that as the claim, because it's facially incorrect. That theory says that Behilder Mage is a well-balanced class (regular, predictable progression). Not only that, but Beholder Mage is somehow more "balanced to level" than any possible skill-based system.

Beholder Mage is better balanced than it would be if it was based on, say, your Spot check.

Better than the warlock I presented above?

The comparison isn't Beholder Mage vs Truenamer, it's:

• Beholder Mage vs Skill-based Beholder Mage
• Truenamer vs Level-based Truenamer
• Wizard vs skill-based Wizard

etc.

[TiaC]

If I made a party of Beholder Mages, it would punch far above its level, but would be internally balanced.

If I made a party of Truenamers, it would range from absolutely useless to merely weak.

I can design encounters for the first party far more easily.

[DSMatticus]

"I have a shitty design that is shitty, and I named it for you?" Clever.
Here, I'll do it too: the DSM Paragon of Balance: at level one, casts one first level spell. At level 2, casts any spell at will as a free action. THANK GOD FOR LEVELS AMIRITE!!!1!

Idiot.

I can't tell if you being a dumbass is a new thing or if I'm just now noticing it.

But yes, thank you for admitting that tying character power to a number other than character level (you know, like skill ranks, skill bonuses, or the coefficient of stupidity) is shitty design. Though I don't quite understand why you're being so cocky and confrontational about admitting you were wrong. Probably because, like the rest of this entire conversation, you have no actual idea what the fuck is going on.

[Koumei]

I can't tell if you being a dumbass is a new thing or if I'm just now noticing it.

You're only just noticing it.

My questions: is there a Cleric Domain that grants either Dodge or Combat Expertise? Also, has the Den a general consensus on which Gaming Den Ranger is typically used?

[Prak]

Fectin- Ignore shittily designed classes. Just look at one class, and what it is vrs what it could do if it were skill based.

The wizard gains X-level spells at (2x-1) character level as it stands.

Lets say you made a skill based Wizard, and said that spell access and power was based on Spellcraft.

The "best" way to handle this is to tie spell level to rank, so Spellcraft 4 gives access to 1st level spells and Spellcraft 6 gives access to 2nd, and Spellcraft 8 gives 3rd and so on. Or you could go with minimums, so SpCft 1 gives 1st, SpCft 2 gives 2nd, etc if you want Wizards to not be required to keep Spellcraft as high as possible (I don't know why you'd do that, but you could).

So you have two wizards, both level 5. Lets say you're using the former mechanic.

Wizard1 wants to be the best wizard he can be, so he keeps Spellcraft maxed out, and always has level appropriate spells. In essence, this is indistinguishable from just having Spells tied to level.

Wizard2 wants to put skillpoints in knowing shit and underwater basket weaving, because it's important to his concept. And maybe he's a newbie and doesn't fully understand how this skill magic system works, so he has the minimum ranks in Spellcraft.

Wizard1 has 8 ranks in Spellcraft and has 3rd level spells. Wizard2 has maybe 5 ranks (1 per level), and thus only has 1st level spells.

Do you see how tying magic to level is inherently more balanced than if it is tied to skills?

There's a third potential system where spell level is tied to your Spellcraft modifier, crazy as that would be. So now we have Wizard1 who wants to be the best Wizard he can, but isn't up on dumpster diving, and Wizard3 who wants to be the very best, and does know how to dumpster dive, so he has 8 ranks in Spellcraft, and an item that gives +10 to Spellcraft, and a +4 Int item, and a starting Int of 20, and Skill Focus (spellcraft) and Magical Aptitude. Just with that, Wizard 3 has a +30 spellcraft modifier, compared to Wizard1 who just has ranks and Int for maybe a +13.

[...You Lost Me]

I do not use any ranger classes -- Instead I have players use the soldier, then take feat to get an animal companion, a second for combat style, and a third for tracking things. If I had a ranger class, it would probably be the tome one because it plays up favored enemies a lot more.

[tussock]

Fantasy Craft attempts to apply MAD to casters, with spells known, spell power, and something else I forget tied to 3 different stats.

Are there any games systems where MAD works the way they intend though?
Where damage/accuracy/defense/stamina/etc. stats really do make for a variety of functional characters.

I recall it's technically impossible, there has to be solutions that are strictly superior, with the exception of two attack and two defence stats (like Str attacks Dex and Cha attacks Wis, bought at linear costs) where there is no stable winner against mixed opponents (which Frank had a go at proving, somewhere).

In theory then, you can support six stats by having different classes each mark out two stats for attack and two different stats for defence, each with two dump stats. Each with a physical and mental pair of attack and defence (where a Dryad might have a Cha defence against physical attacks).

[Insomniac]

Why do Rangers get spells and why has there never really been an option to play without spells in 3.0/3.5 or Pathfinder core book that was competitive with not having spells? Whose idea was it to give this class spells?

[Red_Rob]

Whose idea was it to give this class spells?

Some guy called Gary Gygax. You might have heard of him.

[Orion]

Spellcasting (or supernatural spirit channeling) is the only justification the Ranger has to exist. What else does the class have going for it? Favored enemies, which is a stupid mechanic; tracking and survivalism, which would be available to fighter and rogue type classes in any just world; being friends with animals and forest creatures, which is really not the kind of thing character classes do any more; and fighting with light armor and skirmish weapons, which again should be available to any fighter or rogue type class.

[Emerald]

The 1e ranger was built to be Aragorn, complete with good-only alignment, a talent for killing orcs and goblins, only being able to attract a small band of trusted followers instead of the base fighter's disposable army, the ability to use any magic items with ESP and telepathy (i.e. palantiri), and so on.

That ranger got access to magic-user and druid spells because spell lists were the only source of selectable abilities in 1e and PC backgrounds (the precursor to the skill system) couldn't let you do anything heroic, so if Gygax wanted the ranger to be able to heal major wounds with a few herbs, hide like a shadow in the night, or do other Aragorn-y superhuman things, the easiest way to do that was with spellcasting.

[RadiantPhoenix]

So, what you're saying is, the Ranger should be able to summon an army of ghosts and similar.

[OgreBattle]

Also, has the Den a general consensus on which Gaming Den Ranger is typically used?

I figure there isn't a real consensus on that because having an animal companion and sneaking around the woods are things you can do with feats and skills (the

Many Combat Feats also take the role of 'favored enemy', like giant slayer or ghost punching and so on, that's a lot more interesting than getting +X to hit and damage.

[Reynard]

Is there any book/article/setting/whatever that deals with Ageism in unconventional way?

I want some internal conflicts (and weird customs) for long-lived races (yes - elves and dwarves; also undead), but I don't have sufficiently crazy ideas.

[Prak]

Reynard, looking at some of your other posts, I don't think you're lacking for crazy ideas.


Useful crazy ideas may be another matter, but you have plenty of crazy ideas.

[Reynard]

You mean low-level Wizards sucking at a huge battlefield, because they've been designed for (relatively speaking) short-range skirmishes with few opponents? Or was that catgirl massacre of Illusion spells?

Because I certainly didn't post my ideas about RPG systems or XP/levels for GM. Yet. [insert maniacal laughter and/or thunder]


Seriously, stopped lurking and made an account to post a few articles for local hivemind to digest, but had my hard drive crash next week.

[ishy]

Whose idea was it to give this class spells?

Some guy called Gary Gygax. You might have heard of him.

You're wrong. The first published D&D ranger was written by Joe Fischer in 1975.

[Blicero]

Are there any fantasy RPG settings out there in which societies of mushroom people feature prominently? D&D has the myconid obviously, but I have never seen them used in a particularly interesting way.

[Foxwarrior]

Warhammer 40k?

[K]

Super Mario Brothers?