Can we build the math from the ground up? (And does Vancian help or hurt that?)

[Quertus]

One thing I may need to consider is the difference between contributing in combat and contributing out of combat.

I suppose I had intended "the 'math' for 'out of combat' challenges" to be, "what portion of these level-appropriate scenarios can you contribute to?", as well as "how much did you contribute?".

Of course, this runs into the same problem of, "how much does BFC contribute?"; that is, measuring the relative value of different vectors beyond "the direct approach" and "numbers".

Don't put yourself in a situation where you're comparing the Fighter's weapon-enhancing feature to the Bard's social manipulation feature, because they don't even vaguely compete or solve the same problems. Never be in a position where someone has to spend a feature on either a combat power OR a Roleplaying power, by either granting everyone equal numbers of both (utility feats and combat feats), or making each feature have an aspect of both (the Manipulator feat gives both a utility and a combat power). In other words, a Fighter should have just as many Roleplaying Powers as the Bard, and the Bard should have just as many Combat Powers as the Fighter, or what you're looking for isn't 'balance'. This is because there is no real way of enforcing the base value of either Combat or Roleplaying on any table, or even in an encounter. It'd be like trying to get everyone to use the Metric system while everyone wants to use different weights.

Suppose a noble wants to embarrass the PCs in court. The Bard could use their silver tongue to do damage control. The Fighter could get insulted, and challenge the noble to a duel. The Barbarian could use his grapple bonus and "strange customs" class feature to give the noble a big hug whenever he opens his mouth. The precog could see this coming, and tell the Assassin, who, you know, solves the problem. The Cleric of Tzeentch could make the noble throw up in his mouth, making his words carry less weight. The Wizard could… probably do something.

So, several things.

There's not necessarily a hard line between combat and noncombat abilities. There certainly isn't a hard line between combat and noncombat challenges.

I had little difficulty coming up with an answer for almost any conceptual "class". However, as rather bad news for the purposes of this thread, those answers were almost exclusively ways to solo the challenge. Giving characters these tools doesn't let them *participate* in all challenges.

Getting from point A to point B

Spoiler: Seven Deadly Sins

Show

In the anime "Seven Deadly Sins", the Wizard Merlin could just teleport the party from place to place. But she usually doesn't.

Usually, Meliodus provides transportation via his mobile tavern. It's slower, but it has its advantages: they can bring stuff, they can sleep indoors in comfy beds, Merlin doesn't waste mana, they can travel to warded areas, rumors come to them, they earn money while making Gather Information checks. But, most relevant of all, everyone can contribute to the tavern. Ban can cook. Elizabeth (and Gowler and once even Merlin) can wait tables. Diane can act as a billboard / advertise to try to get customers to come. Merlin can shrink Diane so that she fits inside & doesn't have to walk. I'm not sure how King or Escanor contribute.

Point of that rambling SPOILER is, there are ways to solve noncombat problems that provide the opportunity for other PCs to contribute. Seven Deadly Sins manages to highlight this fairly well, IMO, providing both "everyone contributes" and "one character can solo" the challenge of "getting from point A to point B".

So, I suppose my question is, to what extent does that matter in an RPG? If it does matter, in what ways should the system facilitate that? Or is noncombat "contribute vs solo" something that should/does exist solely at the "role-playing" layer, not the mechanics layer?

There is a combat thing that's fair for every class to do - have a decent melee and range attack. It's unfun not to be able to do anything in a combat no matter how balanced it is in the overall game construction concept. However, it doesn't have to be exactly both melee and range attacks for everyone. It's fine if a class can't do melee well but is great at getting out of melee so he can focus on range attacks, say being able to avoid opportunity attacks others must suffer. Likewise a class that can't do range attacks should be able to get into melee quickly, such as at least he can jump high enough to attack a flying creature which allows him to jump onto high things when not in combat too.

Hmmm… I hear this as "removing weaknesses", akin to "my Pyromancer can burn things immune to fire" and "my Telepath can control undead". Which… when you don't have to worry about a character's schtick being inapplicable, I suppose that does make balancing things easier.

My friends are playing PF2e and they're saying casters are almost useless if they aren't buff/heal bots. I presume that's because they mostly fight hard fights with few high-power monsters, to which debuffs have a very hard time sticking due to PF2 math. Fighters and Champions have been the stars of combat so far (they're level 10 by now), because they slightly break the math everyone else has to follow.

Does PF2 advertise itself as "make muggles great again", lie that "the math just works - all hail balance", or is this a silent feature of the game?

And that is how a good balanced RPG should handle things. No character should be able to contribute everywhere. Otherwise you have to make every character being able to do everything which makes character differences fluff at best. Everytime your party gets a new PC, it should be better at doing some things but worse at doing other things than when another character was added.

So yes, the universalist wizard has to go. It doesn't necessarily mean that wizards only can do one thing. You can device a system, where a caster specialized in blasting of lv 10 could do blasting like lv 10, summoning like lv 8, knowledge skills like lv 6 most regular schools like and many regular nonmagic skills lv 4, magic he is bad at and some regular skills he is bad at like lv2. Of course you would have to make sure, that blasting is not super inferior to summoning. Or divination. Or anything he could take instead.

Well, I really like the idea of a level X character being several "steps" behind in things outside their specialty. So, maybe not every level 6 character should have an answer to "the noble is trying to embarrass the party", but most every class should get an answer at some point in accordance with its aptitude (retardation?) with that particular type of challenge.

The particular windmill I was tilting at with this thread was the idea of "all contribution, all the time". Which is likely an unreasonable goal. Because it just feels Power Rangers level dumb to have every PC contribute to the annoying noble, starting a fire, or the epic challenge of the locked door. 4e already showed us how bad that can be. And while most people focus on how bad the math of skill challenges is, or how, in trying to let everyone contribute, they actually incentive only allowing your best to participate, there's also the Simulationist issue of, "just how does this mechanic make any sense whatsoever?". And while skill challenges might sell nice from a Gamist PoV, really, it shows that 4e designers mistook "rolling dice" for "playing the game". Making decisions is playing the game.

Looking at one of the worst example of a solo: Teleportation. That's not something anyone else can contribute meaningfully to, right?

Except… when the players were handed a battle map, they can discuss the pros and cons of various destinations. I've seen everyone contribute, tactically, to a Teleport.

So why couldn't the PCs do the same thing?

I'll have to think about this. And now I'm building a rules-light, "mother may I" version of D&D based on WoD Mage Dark Ages…