TNE: How often should your schtick be completely useless?

[Draco_Argentum]

So, the 4e verisimilitude thread is a big argument and this is essentially the question being argued.

What percent of the time should a character's primary attack mode be utterly useless?

How often should enemies totally prevent spells from working? How often should something be immune to arrows? How often should melee be impossible? etc

Does anyone think the frequency should be different for different things?

[Crissa]

This is a very hard poll to read.

Also, less answers would probably have been better.

-Crissa

[JonSetanta]

Ha! 100%. I pity the poor PC.
IMO the effectiveness should be determined by stacking resistances high enough so that a defense seems like immunity, when in actuality it just hasn't met a degree of intensity that can surpass it.
Fire Immunity, for instance, would be very high Fire Resistance, but one could not dive into the sun for a nice, long sauna soak (disregarding other factors, such as nuclear fission. the ultimate 'fire'.)

And actually, I had a tossup between voting 10%, and conditional 20% auto-fail encounters that could be solved with wit and strategy.

Ah, I don't know.. it's all abstract, I can't picture it... my mind's too focused on the individual encounter probabilities to see any patterns over the course of an entire 'session' or 'campaign'.
And within the probability of 'winning' each individual encounter, if the entire party is rendered useless due to advanced immunities, IMO such an event would indeed be classified "100% failure" since the party would find (and fail against) other encounters just like it.
... of which there would be an ever-increasing number if the party flees encounters they can not defeat.

[Draco_Argentum]

1204789647[/unixtime]]Also, less answers would probably have been better.

Plausibly, but I did want people to have a decent array of options.

Also, if an enemy is so resistant to your attacks that they your attacks are not doing anything thats immunity. Being able to do 1% of your normal damage means you suck and may as well twiddle your thumbs.

[Manxome]

I assume those are percentages?

Including 100% and not including 0% is an interesting decision...

[Draco_Argentum]

I assume 0% and 100% are non starters really. 100 is more of a joke.

[Manxome]

I can't think of a single genre other than tabletop RPG in which 0% is not the most common option used in actual games I've played. Can you?

Pure tactical games don't typically grant immunities unless a single player controls a group with varied powers, so that the player always has at least one effective option out of his standard set. Ever played an MMO that thought there should be encounters that completely negate an entire class's schtick? Did I overlook an armor option in Counter-Strike that made you immune to sniper rifles? Is there a strategy in Smash Brothers that nullifies the primary schtick of any of the characters? Is there a build order in Warcraft that always beats orcs?

To assume it's a non-starter in an RPG seems rather presumptuous, when it's a near-universal standard in other genres. I'm not necessarily arguing it should be 0%, but I have little doubt that many people would take that at least as their default position.

[Crissa]

I have to say, though, I don't think I've ever played a game in which I've gotten to use my character's schtick one in ten combats, so you guys saying it should fail only one in ten combats seems unrealistic.

...And in Warcraft - at least World of - there are entire instances that nullify the abilities of one or more classes.

-Crissa

[Koumei]

1204793511[/unixtime]]Is there a strategy in Smash Brothers that nullifies the primary schtick of any of the characters?

You're not familiar with tournaments, are you?

"No items, no randoms, Fox only, FINAL DESTINATION!"

Seriously. They ban practically half the arenas because "It's unfair. Someone can just run in circles, the other person never being able to catch up, and simply plink them once or twice with a ranged attack, then when time runs out, they win by %." They then ban items and other random effects, meaning certain characters (Mew, Zero Suit Samus etc.) are essentially unplayable.

So it happens all the time there. But tourney players are annoying. They're even like that in their day to day lives.
"I'm thinking of ordering a pizza. Maybe a hawaiian-"
"No! No pineapple! No ham! Anchovies only! FINAL DESTINATION!"

Um, anyway. I do see your point. And we'll ignore the fact that, in most fighting games, there's a tier system where some characters outright suck (see: Zangief). That's a balance issue and not a "this playstyle/arena/whatever means this type of character now cannot be used" issue.

Even in the WWII game (you know, the WWII game. Honestly. Pick any of them, because there are about six fucking million of the bastards and they're all completely identical. People have been making Call of Duty games for longer than the actual war itself lasted), rapidly strafing randomly isn't sniper-proof, it just makes sniping (and more or less any non-auto shooting) very tricky - for them AND for you.

Crissa: I'd say that surprises me, but then I remember the Katamari Kingdoms (Iron Kingdoms with chunks of Eberron and any other steampunk stuff) game. If I hadn't made my Eldritch Blast a (Su) ability, then most encounters for me would have been "I sit down and do nothing."

[Username17]

1204796866[/unixtime]]I have to say, though, I don't think I've ever played a game in which I've gotten to use my character's schtick one in ten combats, so you guys saying it should fail only one in ten combats seems unrealistic.

The fact that people occasionally make Fortitude saves does not mean that you were unable to cast polymorph on them.

-Username17

[CatharzGodfoot]

Similarly, the fact that you are robin hood does not mean that you are unable to whip out a staff and start bonking people on their heads when they get you in melee.

[Bigode]

Where's the 0?

[Talisman]

I think 10% is a semi-fair amount with the caveat that a PC should always be able to do something. Fighting something immune to magic? Buff the party or mess with the terrain. Flier? Whip out a bow - it's sub-optimal for the Duel-King, but it's there. If nothing else, you can always help out your peeps - you don't have to be Jesus Q. Superman in every encounter.

[RandomCasualty]

1204793511[/unixtime]]
Is there a build order in Warcraft that always beats orcs?

Well real time strategies do have times when a Unit's schtick becomes useless. If the enemy is all wyverns having a bunch of orc grunts wont' help you.

But it's generally okay to have hard counters like that in a strategy game, because you're expected to adapt. If you whine about losing to all wyverns with your grunts, someone is just going to say "Why the hell were you making all grunts if you knew the other guy was going air?". And he's right, because in strategy games you're expected to adapt.

In an RPG, you're generally stuck with the same guy and you're not expected to adapt your character much to the situation. You have what you have, and gaining new abilities midadventure just isn't an option. "Why didn't you just make a wizard" is not an acceptable answer to would be domination scenarios.

The main thing I see in RPGs is that there's really not heavy roles like there is in something like Starcraft. In Starcraft, a bunch of speed upgraded zealots (melee) are going to beat hydralisks (ranged) all the time. Vultures (ranged) are faster than zealots and can harass them and take em out. Of course, the very same hydralisks will beat the vultures because they're more powerful ranged, though slower. Of course, open terrain generally favors melee and a ramp is going to favor ranged, so that balance isn't absolute. Area spells like psistorm are designed to tear up ranged.

D&D doesn't have that counter system, because it lets people have it all. You can be fast, flying, powerful and ranged, such that really, nothing beats you. A flying unit in Starcraft is weaker than a ranged unit (for equivalent resource cost that is), so that it makes up for its flying ability with less damage. That's not a price people have to pay in D&D and it makes a serious difference. There really should be a power cost for flight, such that you can be immune to melee troops, but archers should hurt you pretty badly. Something needs to beat fliers instead of the traditional D&D paradigm where flying > everything.

On the other hand, The biggest problem most melee characters suffer from is that they don't fit into the counter system, like at all. Melee doesn't counter anything well. Melee doesn't beat magic, it doesn't beat ranged, and it doesn't beat flying. So wtf?

If you want a counter system such that certain abilities render other abilities useless, then melee needs to be good at something too. You can't just hose the swordsman by saying he can't beat flying things, but then give him no specialty. If it's okay for a wizard to render something completely useless, then the fighter needs something equivalent, at the very least a strong numerical superiority over something.

[Manxome]

Good points, RC (though I attempted to mention some in my previous post).

It might be worth asking: what percentage of the time should a PC render an opponent's main schtick utterly useless? These are PCs we're talking about, so I'm inclined to say that you should be able to nullify someone else's main ability at least as often as your own gets nullified. Sound reasonable?

[RandomCasualty]

1204832008[/unixtime]]

It might be worth asking: what percentage of the time should a PC render an opponent's main schtick utterly useless? These are PCs we're talking about, so I'm inclined to say that you should be able to nullify someone else's main ability at least as often as your own gets nullified. Sound reasonable?

Well it's conceptually hard for a swordsman to really nullify anybody's main shtick. Though possibly he could nullify an archer by preventing him from using ranged attacks entirely once he closed in. I'm thinking more the meleer is going to have numeric superiority over people, much like Starcraft, where really, anyone can hurt a zealot, but a zealot is plain more efficient against a lot of things.

[JonSetanta]

Someone voted 100%.
....
Ya damn Gygaxian....

[Cielingcat]

I think the whole concept of a "main shtick" is boring. If you have one main ability that's your best you're just going to use it all the time if you want to win, and that's dumb. Each character should have a variety of different things they can do, depending on the situation.

Forgive me if you meant main shtick as in "fire spells" as opposed to "fireball." In that case it should never be nullified unless the character possesses other useful abilities.

[Manxome]

I was thinking more along the lines of "fire magic" than "fireball," but clarifying that might be a good idea.

[SunTzuWarmaster]

I said 30%, because that is what I am comfortable with.

Super Smash Brothers - are you kidding? Seriously? Ignoring the FINAL DESTINATION argument... Pichu (with a capable player) completely destroys every other character in a level that has high items and high maneuverability. Ever tried to play as one of the ranged characters (Samus, Link, minor others) on a vertical level? Have you ever played against Mewtwo on Flatland? Ever played with a character that doesn't have a solid knock-back option (Sheik) on the Link level? Yes, certain situations nullify other characters. Even in the original, try a match-up of Link versus Donkey Kong (no items, starfox stage). It really is disgusting.

As a Dungeons and Dragons note, your character better damn well have an option for when the enemy is rigged against you. Recently in a campaign I was playing a Beguiler against a demon that was immune to mind affecting spells AND had True Seeing AND had a bonus move action (immune to Slow). You're damn straight that I had a Wand of Enlarge Person, a Haste spell, and a Shadowspray lined up.

I expect a rogue to fight undead/elementals/SA-immune creates 20-30% of the time.
I expect the melee fighters to fight flying monsters, mounted troops, and grapple monsters (bears!) about 30% of the time.
I expect the wizards to be rushed by a melee fighter (or caught by a jumping spider, or teleported to, or attacked by invisible monsters, etc.) in the first round of combat about 30% of the time.
I expect clerics to have to close to melee and hit the monster with a mace (assuming the cleric invest no feats in melee) about 30% of the time.

I expect the party to face a ghost/incorporeal about 10% of the time (it is almost always a glaring weakness in everyone's defense).

What do I expect player characters to do about it? Suck it up! Jesus, just because you made a spiked chain tripping character and now you are fighting an Earth Elemental doesn't mean you sit and suck your thumb. Flank the monster. Position yourself to protect the caster. Aid Another. Put up Cover Fire. Whip out a potion. Hit it with an alchemical device, or a net, or a tanglefoot bag. Shot it with a crossbow. Grapple it.

So what if you made a melee specialist that knows the 5 different styles of the Wu Xiang. Today you are fighting a dragon that is remaining out of range. You better damn well have a trick up your sleeve to kill it. You had best plan to buy flying boots, levitate (Drow), trick it into coming to get you, taunt it with an Intimidate check, or, for the love of god, invest in a goddamned bow!

Also, it is not hard for a swordsman to nullify another character's main shtick. I've played enough magic users to know that a solid arrow to the face disrupts all kinds of spells. Also, go buy a Slowing weapon. Take the F+K feat that forces the Save vs. Daze effect. Grapple. Sunder. Trip. If you cannot find a way to disable an enemy that does not rely on your main shtick, then you suck and you deserve death.

[Manxome]

1204845819[/unixtime]]Ever tried to play as one of the ranged characters (Samus, Link, minor others) on a vertical level? Have you ever played against Mewtwo on Flatland? Ever played with a character that doesn't have a solid knock-back option (Sheik) on the Link level?

Yes, yes, and yes.

Now, I don't play at a tournament level, but I don't consider ranged attacks to be "utterly useless" on vertical levels or Sheik to be "utterly useless" in Hyrule Temple.

To whatever extent this "nullification" exists, I think it's a case of "it just kind of worked out that way" rather than the designers sitting down and saying "OK, we need to make sure that Mewtwo can kick everyone's butt in Flatland..."

[SunTzuWarmaster]

I have found Sheik (my favorite character to play, but not the character I am best with) to be quite useless in the event that the other characters hide in that bottom pit area. Attacks just don't have enough knockback to hit them out until they have over 300 damage. The best bet is to try to knock them off somewhere and spike. Sheik having only one, bad, spike, makes him quite bad.

It is certainly a case of "it just kind of worked that way", but the main tactics for many characters cannot be used on some levels, some situations, or with certain item levels. Fox is an awesome character with a large degree of depth, mobility, speed, and power. However, on the pokefloats level, his ground-based dash, dodge, grab, and deflection-guarding tactics perform quite poorly. A player playing Fox on the Pokefloats level must learn to effectively use airdodging, the up-A (air), the sex kick (neutral A in air), and air-deflection tactics in order to be a serious threat to other players*. By the same token, other characters perform well with a wide variety of aerial acrobatics (Shiek, Marth), while using their ground-based attacks to supplement.

The point was that is most games the odds can be stacked against you and that you are forced to do what you can. Some characters are good against others (Donkey Kong is good against a minor-damage character such as Young Link or Peach, but is a poor choice against a decently fast character such as Fox or Captain Falcon). The grab-and-throw tactic is solid with Mewtwo on a flat or open stage, but tactics must be changed for a tiered level.

* - yes, I have played quite a bit of Smash Brothers and I am competent, but not the best at it by far. A good player will beat a weak player nearly all of the time. Typically, between evenly matched players, the match will be decided by items, level selection, and character choice.

[Draco_Argentum]

1204824226[/unixtime]]Where's the 0?

I'm under the impression that puzzle monsters are in. Since these guys pretty much hold up a sign with "your attacks don't work" written on it 0% is out the moment they're in.

Cielingcat, main shtick refers to really broad categories on the level of melee attacks or offensive spells. So the lancer and the stereotypical anime swordsman are melee characters.

[SphereOfFeetMan]

What percent of the time should a character's primary attack mode be utterly useless?

This is completely the wrong question to ask. The question should be: How often should a single Pc's abilities be required (or spotlighted) in overcoming a challenge, while working in concert with a group?

The answer: for a 4 player game it is 1/4 of the time.

Expanded answer: The other 3/4's of the time, when a characters abilities are not spotlighted, they contribute to the success of the group in their own way.

[JonSetanta]

1204853796[/unixtime]]

1204824226[/unixtime]]Where's the 0?

I'm under the impression that puzzle monsters are in. Since these guys pretty much hold up a sign with "your attacks don't work" written on it 0% is out the moment they're in.

I saw it as, similar to Crissa's observation, a number out 10 encounters on average in which your party has no option other than to either rely on a small portion of the party's abilities to succeed (hoping you have the right mix, too!) OR to outright flee with urine-stained pants.

The "0%", from what I gathered, means no encounter will have immunities to anything. Everything works, either by nerfing all foes to the same pissy base (land-traveling, melee-only, whatever) or by amping up the classes to meet every challenge at every appropriate level (enforced competency, aka Tome style game).

The "100%" means in 10 out of 10 encounters every class will always be useless since every foe will be immune to their abilities.
Did I make a grave error in interpreting this vote question?
It says "How often should your schtick be completely useless?" so I put 10%, since that's ... well ... how often ones main attack form should be set aside simply because it won't work.

Also, I play Samus 75-80% of all matches in the last decade. Sometimes Gannondorf. When I'm feeling goofy, a little bit of Cap'n Falcon or Marth. But not much else. I've tried all the characters, and Samus is the best IMHO.
This focus in Samusism compensates for those rare circumstances in which I'm outgunned, outmaneuvered, or overpowered (items or not); I know every move and use them with expert timing. Even on an open field I can smack Pichu around like the little football it is, or that fucking guntoting furfg.
But such a tactic (focus to the point of overcoming any inherent weakness) ONLY works because she's a balanced, well-rounded character!!!
Ranged, melee, dodging, movement, endurance, all in equal competence... a class must emulate Fox or Samus to effectively 'be prepared for anything'.

This is the standard to which I am holding 4e classes. If they can't hold their own in a homogenous group of similar roles (no more of that 4 member F/C/R/W shit), the game's not to the point of development that I want it to be.