Timothy Cain - Character Build Fairness

[HiddenX]

Tim talks about character build fairness:

Character Build Fairness

Thanks Couchpotato!

More information.

 

[JDR13]

Good watch. I agree with what he says about respeccing.

 

[Zloth]

Totally agree! Mostly totally. If a build is going to be extra rough, I would give the player some sort of warning, whether that's in the initial creation or subsequent development. I don't enjoy specializing in pole arms, then finding out the hard way that there are very few magical pole arms, and the best one by far is only usable by half-orcs.

 

[Dolby]

Well i agree on normal difficulty mode. On the hardest difficulty we have a different pact and that is: you can't finish a game with a crappy - low stats(bad build - no synergy) character.

Cos if jack of all trades can do it or got forbid intentionally badly made character can that means i have nothing to do with my character that's power playing and explains why some games are so easy and give little to no challenge to experienced player even on the hard difficulties.

Same thing If a player that doesn't read tooltips can finish the game, again means i have nothing to do and no challenges in game.

And it's crazy how many players have no clue what half of skills, abilities do or only know half of it just cos they don't read what those skill do or how they works. If things are balanced around that.... Well then you have a problem.

 

[Dolby]

I don't enjoy specializing in pole arms, then finding out the hard way that there are very few magical pole arms, and the best one by far is only usable by half-orcs.

That's why specializations should come with use of weapon - items over time and not just from one skill you pick... Or at least it should have a few weapon types that come with that specialization. COs if you do it like that by level points only it sucks if it's only one weapon type or armor per skill. Armor specializations are normally a bit better cos there are just 3 types.

Respec is kinda like cheating for devs for that, but not optimal by far. I guess at least IF they don't make enough items for all builds it's not as bad like it was in the past.

In truth item fairness is really low in rpgs.

IF i had 10$ for every time i looted a magical two handed weapon i would be a millionaire and i could make my own RPg where you could actually power play and properly use ALL weapons and NOT just the fucking greatsword.

I fucking hate greatsword it's like people can't playing with anything else.

 

[fadedc]

I dislike weapon specialization skills in general. They just make it so I can't use most of the weapons that I find and I'm not sure they add any real strategic depth in most cases. But I often feel forced to take them because they provide significant bonuses that the games expect you to have.

It bothers me less if it's something like one handed mastery or shield mastery that is less about the exact weapon than the play style the type of weapon provides (ie offensive vs. defensive). But I hate it if I have to decide between say axes, hammers or swords with no information to go buy other than guessing which is likely to be the most common drop.

 

[Carnifex]

I never respeciallize my blokes, if I've made an error in design I suck it up and play best as I can. Usually by the time I realize I have made a mistake I'm pretty far into a game and unlikely to restart, I'll simply muddle through best I can. I do, however, take extensive notes and will make corrections for a second visit.

 

[Philistine]

I was having this debate with my son last night. I never think about 'builds' or what may drop when I'm developing my character. It's all about who that person is and how they fit into the world. So if my character doesn't work too well, I tend to blame the game for not being open enough. My son says that's what difficulty options are for. He says you should be able to play any kind of character you want on normal/story and powergame for hard/tactical.

 

[vanedor]

I dislike weapon specialization skills in general. They just make it so I can't use most of the weapons that I find and I'm not sure they add any real strategic depth in most cases. But I often feel forced to take them because they provide significant bonuses that the games expect you to have.

It bothers me less if it's something like one handed mastery or shield mastery that is less about the exact weapon than the play style the type of weapon provides (ie offensive vs. defensive). But I hate it if I have to decide between say axes, hammers or swords with no information to go buy other than guessing which is likely to be the most common drop.

Ah, funny, I'm so the opposite. I hate when there are no weapon specialization skill. It means weapons are overall not as interesting and more often than not, it means I just have to pick the best weapon, instead of the best one for "my" character. Often, the type of weapon becomes more "aesthetic" than anything else.

I like to pick my weapon and if in the end it's not *the* best weapon, at least it gives some alternative.

 

[Dolby]

Ah, funny, I'm so the opposite. I hate when there are no weapon specialization skill. It means weapons are overall not as interesting and more often than not, it means I just have to pick the best weapon, instead of the best one for "my" character. Often, the type of weapon becomes more "aesthetic" than anything else.

I like to pick my weapon and if in the end it's not *the* best weapon, at least it gives some alternative.

Well yes but sometimes weapon choices are so bad that for the specialization you pick you get like 1 or two unique weapon in the whole game IF that and like i said on the other side you almost always get like 5 - 10 greatswords...

Clubs, flails, morningstars, daggers, maces, spears they are all really rare so if i players picks one of those they will have a hard time finding a good weapon for their character and specialization... So i understand why some people metagame when it comes to specializations.

 

[JDR13]

I love weapon specialization skills, and they make sense. There are too many different kinds of weapons in these settings for an adventurer to be equally skilled in all of them.

 

[lackblogger]

It shouldn't really matter if there's only one version of a good weapon in a game, as long as it's feasible and enjoyable to take that one weapon through the whole game.

Like in Baldur's Gate 1 if you kill that guy with the +1 flaming longsword quite early in the game, it can and will likely be with you for aaaages, and still be fun to use for aaaages.

It makes for a good nitpick when you're reviewing a game to moan about a lack of varied weapons for XYZ weapon, but that what it is, just a nitpick. I'd say that kind of itemisation, while not perfection, is still leagues better than diablo-style constant random minor % upgrades every two encounters.

I nitpicked PF Kingmaker for having oodles of two-handers, but not much in the way of another weapon (forget which), but, as you can tell, it's not a major memorable complaint and is more about too much special two-handers than about the lack of other weapons.

The great thing about weapon specialisation, for fighters at least, was that it meant that even if you had a relatively mundane weapon, you're specialisation stats would boost it anyway, so it didn't matter so much. Without weapon specialisation you're solely relying on finding or buying upgrades.

Or, as others have said, if you just have a general weapon proficiency that covers all, then it detracts from the individuality of the character and dilutes the concept of a personal build.

 

[fadedc]

Ah, funny, I'm so the opposite. I hate when there are no weapon specialization skill. It means weapons are overall not as interesting and more often than not, it means I just have to pick the best weapon, instead of the best one for "my" character. Often, the type of weapon becomes more "aesthetic" than anything else.

I like to pick my weapon and if in the end it's not *the* best weapon, at least it gives some alternative.

I don't mind weapon specializations as much if there is a real and distinct difference between weapons. Like in Lords of Xulima where swords cause bleed, hammers stun and axes wound.

But they annoy me more in games like Pathfinder where swords and axes are functionally identical. Though I understand they had to stay true to the D&D/pathfinder rules.

 

[daveyd]

I was having this debate with my son last night. I never think about 'builds' or what may drop when I'm developing my character. It's all about who that person is and how they fit into the world. So if my character doesn't work too well, I tend to blame the game for not being open enough. My son says that's what difficulty options are for. He says you should be able to play any kind of character you want on normal/story and powergame for hard/tactical.

I think in a sense you're both right.

A poorly designed RPG could just make (mandatory) fights so trivial that characters who aren't built for combat can get through them without much trouble; which makes things too easy / boring for anyone playing a character built for fighting.
In a well designed RPG you'll have multiple ways to solve quests (at least mandatory main quests), so for example an option to solve with social skills / diplomacy, an option for stealth, etc. so most builds can advance in the game and players get to roleplay the character they built.

That said if someone creates a "jack of all trades" character, doesn't understand the basic mechanics, or even deliberately designs a character who is bad at everything, I'm fine with them having a really hard time getting through the game. Even difficulty settings shouldn't save you from really bad builds, IMO.

I'm someone who tends to like hard games and unfortunately most games aren't designed exactly with players like me so I find games too easy and try to complete them on the highest difficulty setting. Though sometimes the highest difficulty isn't fun because it turns enemies into HP sponges.... I'd rather see more RPGs just have challenging combat by default and make it so stealth / diplomacy builds are essentially the "easy / story mode".

 

[Zloth]

Ideally, I like the Arms Master system from Rolemaster. You specialize in certain weapons, but 'similar' weapons also get a partial bonus. And with these fancy computers, we don't have to simplify to just "similar or not similar," we can say it's 70% similar, or 20% similar, or 30% similar against full plate mail but 80% similar against some old guy in a robe. We could even do combos, so somebody specialized in both two handed swords and longswords may be 90% similar to a bastard sword. As long as the computer is tracking it all and doing the math, complexity is great!

And yeah, I like the learn-by-doing best. Theoretically, the learn-by-doing style should increase your skill with every swing, but emotionally making advancement that granular isn't nearly as fun as seeing "Spetum specialization increased!" and getting a noticeable change.

P.S. What's this silliness about everyone using great swords? I almost never use those slow... oh wait. <ahem> OK, so I'm using one in my current game - but I rarely use one unless it's forced on me!

 

[bjon045]

BG2 did it well. Have fighting styles that you can specialise in i.e. two weapon, two handed, single weapon or sword and shield. Other types of grouping work well too i.e. blunt, slash, pierce. Kingmaker sucked if you chose the wrong weapon type. I was stuck with a +1 weapon all the way till chapter 4.

 

[fadedc]

Ideally, I like the Arms Master system from Rolemaster. You specialize in certain weapons, but 'similar' weapons also get a partial bonus. And with these fancy computers, we don't have to simplify to just "similar or not similar," we can say it's 70% similar, or 20% similar, or 30% similar against full plate mail but 80% similar against some old guy in a robe. We could even do combos, so somebody specialized in both two handed swords and longswords may be 90% similar to a bastard sword. As long as the computer is tracking it all and doing the math, complexity is great!

And yeah, I like the learn-by-doing best. Theoretically, the learn-by-doing style should increase your skill with every swing, but emotionally making advancement that granular isn't nearly as fun as seeing "Spetum specialization increased!" and getting a noticeable change.

P.S. What's this silliness about everyone using great swords? I almost never use those slow... oh wait. <ahem> OK, so I'm using one in my current game - but I rarely use one unless it's forced on me!

I suppose a big advantage of two-handed weapons in a game like Pathfinder is that there aren't so many of them. So for a one-handed weapon you have to pick one type out of 40 and hope you find a magic version (longswords are usually the safest bet). But the loot pool for 2-handed weapons is much less diluted and great swords are more generically common (plus mechanically superior to other types for the most part).

I did like how Wrath of the Righteous had the shapeshifting intelligent weapon so you that even if you chose a poorly itemized weapon you could still guarantee having something to use.