Guardrails: avoiding unexpected breakage vs preventing exploits

[Errorname]

That's another unfortunate side effect of class based games though.

So yeah. If someone is bothering to shoot at you with a bow, they probably have bow feats, so cover beomes irrelevant. If someone is using pretty much any weapon or spell or ability it pretty much means that "this is something my class/creature-type uses, so I'm super good at it" (well, unless we're playing at very low levels).

That doesn't seem like it follows? Ranged feats making cover irrelevant is a design choice that a classless game could also make, and a choice that a game with classes but where terrain and cover is a core tactical concern probably wouldn't make.

The actual cause is that D&D doesn't really value cover, it's not a core mechanic.

[gbaji]

I am not sure i really want this.

Most inspiration for whatever fighting character has their primary weapon. And then some small sidearm for emergencies which which they gor significantly less training on top of it being inferior and where the whole strategy revolves around avoiding situations where they ever need to use it.
Sure, it is only most, not all. There always were some special units or individuals trained on a huge viriety of weapons. But this is not the norm. Weapons are expensive, heavy and unwieldy so you would never take a whole set to war anyway and training takes time.

I'm not talking about people being trained in a huge variety of weapons. RQ is a skill based game, so you do still have to pick weapons and spend time learning how to use them. The difference is that it is not a class based game, so your class doesn't define what weapons you use, and it doesn't define what feats you pick up which further refines what weapons you become really really good at (there are no feats, and no concept of such things).

You just pick up a weapon and start using it. Over time, you become good at it. And since there are times when having a smaller or more concealable weapon is desired, characters tend to pick those up as well, and become good with them over time as well. It's still pretty much always the case that any given character will have one "best weapon skill", and will prefer to use that weapon when possible. However, it's also not uncommon at all for folks to have to use different weapons for one reason or another, and not feel so completely gimped as a result.

RQ is also not a level based game, and there are significant diminishing returns by simply increasing your skill in a single weapon. First off, it takes longer and is harder to gain more skill the higher your skill is *and* the benefit to you, once you are over a specific skill level is relatively minimal (you increase special and critical chances, but otherwise a hit is a hit). We actually had to add in some house rules to provide advantages for exceptionally high skill (which are otherwise really lacking). But even with those rules, there's still a huge amount of value and abillity to become "very good" with a second or third weapon, despite being "insanely good" with your primary one.

Highly experienced characters commonly have a wide assortment of "very good" weapon skills. Um... Also, since it's a skill based on not level based game, there is no "cost" to learning a backup weapon. You just use it. If you succed at it (get a hit or parry), you have a chance to go up with that skill. The only cost is that you used a weapon you are less skilled at (and may do less damage with) in this one combat, instead of your main weapon. It's not like you adventure for X time, gain a level and then decide where to spend skill points, or which feats to take. The GM literally says "you can roll for skill increases" (there's some conditions on when that can happen in the game), and you look on your sheet, and every skill you've used succesfully since the last increase check, you get to roll to see if you increase. So "use my backup once per game session" is sufficient here. There is no zero sum game choice involved.

That does not mean that weapons should not be of situational usefulness. But that should result in their weilders being of situational usefelness, not that your archer batallion grabs spears on a foggy day and is as useful as a spearmen unit.

Not "as useful" as someone for whom that is their primary weapon. Just not "so completelly unskilled" that using it is effectively useless or that they'd continue to try to use their "best weapon" even in the most extremely incompatible situations, because the bonuses and benefits are so stacked up that it's still going to be the best choice. If firing blindly in a fog bank is still going to result in more hits for more damage than "pick up a melee weapon and engage", then that may be an indication that the system is too deep and not broad enough.

And in RQ, it would actually be strange (outside of maybe specifically trained miltary units) to have anyone who was highly skilled at a missile weapon, but not equally (or more) skilled with a melee weapon. Just as mentioned above, there is no reason not to fire your bow at opponents when at range, and then close to melee and finish the fight hand to hand. You get skill checks in each, and one doesn't prevent you from increasing in the other. The concept of picking weapon feats, or applying a specific set of skill points, and having a fixed amount at any period during character advancement, simply doesn't exist in that game.

I guess my point is that because those concepts don't exist, they also don't push character development in a "deep not broad" direction.

I would prefer different maneuvers, stances and tactics that can be done with the same weapon.

How about "different weapons are more/less useful with different tactics"? Again, remember that my objective here isn't to force weapon diversity, but as a response to "what do you do if the game environment/terrain prohibits some specific weapons from being used?". If your character uses greatsword, and has developed a ton of different maneuvers, stances, and tactics that allow him to use his greatsword to do a ton of stuff, it's going to really suck if the GM says "You are in a 2.5' wide hallway, and can't use your greatsword". The game system, focusing on "more things you can do with the one weapon you focus on" kinda cuases that to be a high cost probolem (which is precisely why most GMs ignore it).

If, instead of focusing on "all the cool things you can do with your one weapon", you instead create a "each weapon has its own pros and cons and you are free to pick any of them up and learn to use them" approach, then any character can, by picking up different weapon skills, be capable in a wide assortment of situations they may find themselves in. If the concept of "you can't always count on being able to use that weapon" is embedded into the game system itself, it will lend itself to greater diversity.

But yeah. It also requires significant changes from the core game assumptions in D&D. Which was kinda my point. You really can't do this (or can't do it easily) while still using the class/level system that D&D uses. I'm not saying "change D&D to be like this". I'm saying "this is why this tends to happen in D&D". Honestly, any sort of experience point based system tends towards this (though some can mitigate it somewhat with increasing costs as you move up the skill trees). But D&D? It's probably the absolute worst game in this sense. Classes with specific feat selections (and feat trees/prereqs). Feats gained by gaining levels. Levels used to determine CR/difficulty of opponents. Skills that are "flat costs", but many of which require increasinbly high point values to be functional against "level appropriate" threats. Heck. Feats that are "flat cost", but become more powerful the father up a feat tree you are.

The whole game is almost designed from top to bottom with character specialization in mind. Which, don't get me wrong, still works just fine and is loads of fun to play (and one can argue makes party makeup variations significant in play). But yeah. It also therefore introduces a much higher cost to any thing which blocks the use of anything a character has specialized in (whatever that may be). You can play a wizard in a dungeon that exists entirely in an AMF, for example. But you would rightliy feel your character was useless as a result. A melee character with no ranged attacks, will simllarly feel useless when all opponents are at range and can't be reached. A ranged attack focused character will feel useless if the environment somehow prohibits ranged attacks (fighting in a windstorm maybe?).

A game system where "my character has spells, but can also fight in melee, and has a ranged weapon, and is reasonably skilled with all of them", doesn't have the extreme "I'm uber"/"I'm useless" swings to it. That's not to say it's superior or more fun, or whatever, but is quite relevant when considering "why don't more people use terrain/environmental effects in D&D?". The answer is that they don't, because those effects will either be too minor and thus (mostly) irrelevant and not worth the bother *or* they will nullify a characters entire build and be too great an effect (and perhaps result in player crying or something).

[KorvinStarmast]

The actual cause is that D&D doesn't really value cover, it's not a core mechanic.

Suggest you read the basic rules for 5e.
It is a fundamental mechanic that too many players don't use very well.
It is right there in Chapter 9

Cover
Walls, trees, creatures, and other obstacles can provide cover during combat, making a target more difficult to harm. A target can benefit from cover only when an attack or other effect originates on the opposite side of the cover.

There are three degrees of cover. If a target is behind multiple sources of cover, only the most protective degree of cover applies; the degrees aren’t added together. For example, if a target is behind a creature that gives half cover and a tree trunk that gives three-quarters cover, the target has three-quarters cover.

Half Cover
A target with half cover has a +2 bonus to AC and Dexterity saving throws. A target has half cover if an obstacle blocks at least half of its body. The obstacle might be a low wall, a large piece of furniture, a narrow tree trunk, or a creature, whether that creature is an enemy or a friend.

Three-Quarters Cover
A target with three-quarters cover has a +5 bonus to AC and Dexterity saving throws. A target has three-quarters cover if about three-quarters of it is covered by an obstacle. The obstacle might be a portcullis, an arrow slit, or a thick tree trunk.

Total Cover
A target with total cover can’t be targeted directly by an attack or a spell, although some spells can reach such a target by including it in an area of effect. A target has total cover if it is completely concealed by an obstacle.

There are a substantial number of abilities, features, and spells that have "that you can see" as a criterion.

[Errorname]

Suggest you read the basic rules for 5e. It is a fundamental mechanic that too many players don't use very well.

If most players don't use it, it's probably not really fundamental. I'm not saying D&D doesn't have cover mechanics, but they're not expected and the game still plays like itself without them.

There are a substantial number of abilities, features, and spells that have "that you can see" as a criterion.

I would draw a distinction between "concealment" and "cover" because a game can have mechanics for one without having the other. I actually revised my post because I initially wrote both, but D&D places a lot of value on concealment and has a lot of abilities designed to create it.

[Telok]

In D&D 5e I've never seen anything short of absolute total cover/concealment do a damn thing. The movement rules, melee range requirement for many classes, and access to abilities/effects that ignore cover/concealment have diminished it to nearly pointless. The melee didn't care, the first guy soaked all the opportunity attacks and they walked around cover to beatstick. The archers didn't care they had feats/items to ignore it. The casters didn't care, they can move at least as well as anyone (often better) or drop area effects around corners, and anything that can't see them can't counterspell them either.

[Xervous]

Even in the kiddie pool of depth that is D&D 5e there’s much to be done with LoS denial. Most maps end up too small and too open for it to be properly leveraged. Walk into LoS, shoot, walk back is ludicrously efficient against most PCs. It denies archers their extra attacks, it forces the casters to ready actions when using targeted spells, and when placing your goblins strategically you get a 1 v many kill box for the idiots who can only use sword.

[KorvinStarmast]

If most players don't use it, it's probably not really fundamental.

Incorrect.
For Telok:
The use of half and 3/4 cover is very common in the games that I play. That your table(s) choose to ignore it is maybe a problem for your table(s) to solve: know the game, know the rules, play the game.

I would draw a distinction between "concealment" and "cover" because a game can have mechanics for one without having the other. I actually revised my post because I initially wrote both, but D&D places a lot of value on concealment and has a lot of abilities designed to create it.

Concur. Wood Elf ability, Mask of the Wild, for example.

[Telok]

Incorrect.
For Telok:
The use of half and 3/4 cover is very common in the games that I play. That your table(s) choose to ignore it is maybe a problem for your table(s) to solve: know the game, know the rules, play the game.

Concur. Wood Elf ability, Mask of the Wild, for example.

Your "git gud noob" attitude is extremely insulting and makes some very bad assumptions. That the players avail themselves of cover negating abilities and the requirement of small maps to cater to melee classes in 5e is something you can discuss. Snarky brush offs without any basis are useless.

[KorvinStarmast]

Your "git gud noob" attitude is extremely insulting and makes some very bad assumptions. That the players avail themselves of cover negating abilities and the requirement of small maps to cater to melee classes in 5e is something you can discuss. Snarky brush offs without any basis are useless.

Just as useless as your assertion.

In D&D 5e I've never seen anything short of absolute total cover/concealment do a damn thing. The movement rules, melee range requirement for many classes, and access to abilities/effects that ignore cover/concealment have diminished it to nearly pointless.

Not true, in our experience. Not even close.

Also, I have a good deal of experience dealing with players who can't be bothered to read up on all of chapter 9. I am continually having to teach and mentor other players, regardless of if I am DM or Player for that session.
TBH, it doesn't surprise me that you have shared that you, and /or some of the folks at your tables, approach the game in a similar way to a goodly portion of the folks I have played with in this edition.

But I do something about it. Mentoring and coaching is a thing.

So is learning new bits that we haven't covered before.
A good example is how the wind walk spell's movement amplification kind of overwhelms the typical battlemap's tactical scale. We ran into that a week ago, and I am not sure I got the ruling right. We will be revisiting that next week at our next session.

Lastly: git gud noob. Your words, not mine.

[Quertus]

There's... a lot to unpack here. Like... do class-based systems provide more guiderails than point-buy systems? Do class-based systems provide more obvious "happy paths" than point-buys? Is class-based vs point-buy a false dichotomy? How does a novice GM, or experienced GM new to the system affect these considerations? Do players build characters? What role do things like the adventure, communication, role protection, and action economy play? How much of an idea of the character do or should players have / where do character ideas come from?

Let me start with that last one. Once upon a time, I built a character, Balteus Battlerager, "Rage" to his friends, the only Dwarf I've ever played. He was a Dwarven Berserker // Psionicist. He was a very calm, collected individual (when abducted by Ravenloft, greeted all the horrors of the realm with open arms, attempting Diplomacy over Combat despite how foolish that obviously was) because he knew just how bad his temper could get.

Sans the parenthetical, that's stuff I walked into character creation knowing. I picked up a music proficiency in fife, grabbed a few items like said fife, and a knife and a bowl, on top of armor and a battleaxe.

Then the other players convinced the GM to use not just "proficiencies", but also "secondary skills". The other players kept rolling and rolling until they got something thematic, like "Tanner" for a Ranger. Then they turned to me. I sighed, and said, "roll once - if I like it, I'll take it; otherwise, I'll just ignore it.". They rolled, and said I clearly needed to reroll - I had rolled "no skills of negligible worth" (afb - I've got to be remembering that text wrong). I thought for a moment, noticed the fife and bowl on my inventory, and said, "I'll take it". Everyone stared at me. "I'm clearly running a beggar - someone who never found their place in society".

Marvel faserip, OTOH? The default path for character creation is completely random. So I'm playing a <roll> Breed Mutant with <roll> 14 powers, including <roll> Flight and <roll> Matter Transmutation. Or, even if you picked your powers (but roll everything else - evil grin), you could have a "space marine" with a Feeble(1) Plasma Rifle and a Monstrous(63) Flashlight, whose stats include Poor(3) Strength and Endurance, and Amazing(46) Reason.

Just the basic premise of "what should you walk into character creation knowing about your character?" isn't trivial to just nail down and assume it's the right answer across all groups and all systems and all scenarios.

So, is "no skills of measurable worth" (probably what that text said) balanced with "Tanner" or "Hunter"? Obviously not. At least, not mechanically. However, for providing richness to the background of the character? IME, yes, they were quite balanced in that regard. Of course, D&D has 3 pillars: COMBAT, ... what were we talking about? D&D as seen at most tables is mostly about combat, and none of those "secondary skills" affected combat, so whether or not they were balanced didn't really matter, did it? Well... as it turned out, when we were given our first "quest reward", the other PCs went shopping. My character? As a beggar unaccustomed to such money, he went and donated all but pocket change to the church. And was rewarded with a copy of "Van Richten's Guide to Something Something". Which should obviously be able to have some impact on the Plot or something (and - gasp - maybe even on COMBAT).

In Marvel faserip, you can walk in with no concept of the character, roll up a random character, and create something completely unbalanced (in either direction). Or you can walk in with a very concrete character concept, use an alternate, official character "creation" method to just pick Thor or Doctor Strange or Quasar or Dagger or Aunt May... and still potentially end up with something completely unbalanced (in either direction)

In D&D, you can walk in with no concept, pick a class at random, and potentially create something unbalanced (in either direction). Or you can walk in with a very concrete character concept, and create a Tier 1 Druid or take 1 level in each class, and create something (the playground generally considers) unbalanced (in either direction).

So my tentative answer is, how much of an idea you have for your character coming into character creation doesn't necessarily change how (un)balanced an end result you'll get.

But what about the "happy path" of picking "obvious, thematically evocative options"? Well... in D&D, you could create something completely balanced, like a Talky Rogue w/ SA DPS, but come to find out that it is completely unbalanced for the intended campaign. If everything is vulnerable to and easy to Sneak Attack, and everything is vulnerable to Diplomancy, you've built something OP; OTOH, if everything in the module is mindless undead, you're a peasant with one extra HP per level. Hooray?

So there's an awful lot of moving parts to this equation that one would have to line up in order to get a proper, holistic view of the question (and why doesn't "holistic" start with a "w"? Isn't "whole" the root word here?). I'm really not sure there's any correlation between "class vs point-buy" and "likelyhood of (un)balanced", even going through the potentially obfuscating middle step of correlating them with somewhat nebulous "guardrails".

That said, I strongly agree with the main sentiment of the OP, that it would be nice if an RPG could gently guide new players to create functional characters by default. Absolutely. And, yes, classes have some definite advantages over point-buy - especially for players who enter the game with little concept for their character. But I've found the arguments that classes correlate to unbroken characters unconvincing.

[KorvinStarmast]

I strongly agree with the main sentiment of the OP, that it would be nice if an RPG could gently guide new players to create functional characters by default.

Interestingly, D&D 5e does that with their Basic Rules Quick Build tool, and the choice to roll for the background traits, ideals, bonds and flaws.

[Quertus]

Interestingly, D&D 5e does that with their Basic Rules Quick Build tool, and the choice to roll for the background traits, ideals, bonds and flaws.

And (as much as I dislike it) I’d imagine it’d be pretty easy for someone to argue that Bounded Accuracy helps minimize those pitfalls, too.

Can you expand on how “the choice to roll for the background traits, ideals, bonds and flaws” would “gently guide new players to create functional characters by default”?

[kyoryu]

But what about the "happy path" of picking "obvious, thematically evocative options"? Well... in D&D, you could create something completely balanced, like a Talky Rogue w/ SA DPS, but come to find out that it is completely unbalanced for the intended campaign. If everything is vulnerable to and easy to Sneak Attack, and everything is vulnerable to Diplomancy, you've built something OP; OTOH, if everything in the module is mindless undead, you're a peasant with one extra HP per level. Hooray?

I'd argue this is several layers of failure layered on top of each other.

First, I think it's an error of the system to encourage people to hyper-specialize to the point that if their specialization doesn't work they're useless... especially if they need to specialize to that level to be useful! Talky Rogue should be able to do more than Diplomacy, in many ways, and they should also be useful even if SA isn't viable.

Secondly, I think it's an error in creature design to make it so that a given adventure is likely to have all opponents that line up very well with a particular set of strengths/weaknesses.

Third, I personally think it's an error in scenario design if you can't, as a player, figure out a way to bring (especially non-combat) abilities into the situation. Surely, on an adventure, there's some people that can be talked to, and some way to leverage that strength - unless, of course, the GM sets up the entire thing in advance.

So, you're not wrong, but I think there's some core assumptions that can and should be fixed at the system level.

That said, I strongly agree with the main sentiment of the OP, that it would be nice if an RPG could gently guide new players to create functional characters by default. Absolutely. And, yes, classes have some definite advantages over point-buy - especially for players who enter the game with little concept for their character. But I've found the arguments that classes correlate to unbroken characters unconvincing.

Sure. And while I'll agree that there's no guarantee that a particular class-based game is more balanced, or a particular skill-based game is less so, the fact that class-based games have a smaller amount of combinatorial complexity means that, in general, it's going to be easier to balance things in a class-based game. There are exceptions! D&D 3.x (though I don't know if I'd really call it 'class-based') is one of the systems most prone to optimization out there. OTOH, Fate is skill-based and is very hard to do optimization abuse.

But, still, in general class-based games are easier to put baselines/guardrails in if that's your goal. Much like we can reasonably say that cars use less fuel than trucks, but there are certainly gas-guzzling cars and fuel-efficient trucks.

[Telok]

And (as much as I dislike it) I’d imagine it’d be pretty easy for someone to argue that Bounded Accuracy helps minimize those pitfalls, too.

Can you expand on how “the choice to roll for the background traits, ideals, bonds and flaws” would “gently guide new players to create functional characters by default”?

From my dim memories it went something like: pick class & race, take standard stat array & assign the highest score(s) to the class primary stat(s). Then a few "you get A & B plus choose two from <list>" for skills, gear, and spells. The backgrounds stuff was basically about as impactful as the AD&D secondary skills (thus all totally GM dependent unless they gave an actual proficency) plus a couple optional character quirks.

Its a first level character template with decent stats and half standardized non-terrible gear/spell choices. Thats functional in every version of D&D ever, and most any other game.

I've seen the same done in Champions & Gurps& other games. A set of basic templates for different archtypes with some "choose from <list>" customizations. Its been around forever.

[KorvinStarmast]

And (as much as I dislike it) I’d imagine it’d be pretty easy for someone to argue that Bounded Accuracy helps minimize those pitfalls, too.

Yes, if you follow the Quick Build advice, the pitfalls can be easily avoided.

Can you expand on how “the choice to roll for the background traits, ideals, bonds and flaws” would “gently guide new players to create functional characters by default”?

The answer is in Chapter 4 of the PHB/Basic rules. You pick a background and then roll a die for each trait (or pick one, either / or) and there you are. There you have 4 role playing hooks (to use as needed) to help give more shape to the imaginary character.

I've seen the same done in Champions & Gurps& other games. A set of basic templates for different archtypes with some "choose from <list>" customizations. Its been around forever.

Yes.

Mothership does something similar in terms of using the archetype to bound the high and low save attributes simply, and an easy menu of "what are you good at" that I found very clear and easy to use.
(The gear selection is a bear, though; they could use a Quick Build feature, IMO).

Blades in the Dark, while not new player friendly, does have a pretty good "pick a class now follow along as you pick features" scheme.
I found it easy to use. (But as I have been playing a long time, maybe I am not a good example)

[Quertus]

But, still, in general class-based games are easier to put baselines/guardrails in if that's your goal.

Ah. Not “class has inherent correlation to guardrails”, but “class is easier to design with guardrails”? Hmmm…

On the one hand, I agree that there are indeed inherently fewer combinations/objects to test if there are fewer combinations/objects possible. But OTOH… like we agree, there’s lots of factors that add together to create this problem, including things like scenario design.

Like, if you’re doing a 1-shot, and the entirety of the scenario is, “suddenly, bus accident!” (or anachronistic equivalent), I imagine a lot of characters will struggle to meaningfully contribute. In classic D&D, Cleric has the decided advantage over Fighter Mage and Thief IMO, and I know irl I’d struggle to contribute to that scenario (I’ve got a phone, low on charge from posting on the Playground) compared to my mom, a trained trauma surgeon nurse. OTOH, I’d be fairly useful in a zombie apocalypse (although possibly still beaten by my mom, Dagnabbit!)… while Cleric still seems a strong contender for undisputed MVP.

Not to go too deep into the weeds, but I suspect any system robust enough to handle arbitrary scenarios like “suddenly, bus accident!” or “zombie apocalypse” will need similar degrees of care to not create great disparity between characters in such scenarios, regardless of their class/points core.

[Slipjig]

I am not sure i really want this.

Most inspiration for whatever fighting character has their primary weapon. And then some small sidearm for emergencies which which they gor significantly less training on top of it being inferior and where the whole strategy revolves around avoiding situations where they ever need to use it.
Sure, it is only most, not all. There always were some special units or individuals trained on a huge viriety of weapons. But this is not the norm. Weapons are expensive, heavy and unwieldy so you would never take a whole set to war anyway and training takes time.

That does not mean that weapons should not be of situational usefulness. But that should result in their weilders being of situational usefelness, not that your archer batallion grabs spears on a foggy day and is as useful as a spearmen unit.

That's generally true of superheroes and anime. And peasant levies were probably only trained in a single way to fight.

But professional soldiers (which is what the D&D martial classes emulate) were ABSOLUTELY expected to be proficient in a variety of combat scenarios. A knight was expected to be able to take his place with a lance in a cavalry charge, but he's also expected to be able to dismount and fight another knight on foot using a warhammer, storm a castle with a sword, or even take up a pike if needs to take command of a peasant levy. A samurai was at minimum expected to be able to switch hit between sword and bow. A viking raider was expected to charge in with his axe and shield, but he's also expected to be able to climb over the castle wall and quietly knife a sentry during an infiltration. Heck, your standard action hero is almost certainly good with a gun AND his fists (and possibly a melee weapon, depending on the genre).

Even for modern soldiers, earning the Expert Infantry Badge (which is something we expect ordinary privates to attempt) requires demonstrating at basic proficiency with eight different weapons.