PDA

View Full Version : Why Duels don't (or shouldn't) matter. [Any]



OneFamiliarFace
2009-01-10, 03:24 AM
So I often run into discussions on this board (as well as other places) whereby people attempt to prove the efficacy or quality of a given roleplaying system by citing the results of duels between various types of characters.

Initial Discussion:

Point buy and skill based systems don't seem to suffer this same problem. Rather, it resides primarily in class based systems. We all know what I am talking about: Wizard v Fighter (2000-present).

The first argument, that the system is broken because a fighter could never beat a wizard, doesn't make any sense to me. Most every roleplaying system is designed for a group of people to fight imaginary other people (or monsters). So I guess I don't particularly care if a wizard can kill a fighter. If my players are fighting that bad, then the game isn't going to last much longer anyway.

The second argument is the one I am concerned with: That a certain class overshadows or makes useless another class' role.

For example, if a Scout is directly better than a Rogue, then this only matters if one player wants to play a Scout and another a Rogue (Or, likewise for 4e, if a Warlord is better than a Shaman).
Initial conclusions: (for fast reading) 1. Players won't be dueling. 2. What matters is if one class overshadows another.

Solution: short answer - The DM (and heck, The Players too)

When we sign up to be a DM, we shoulder a certain amount of work with that assignment, which is what, in fact, makes roleplaying games so great. It isn't the class or the point buy that allows players to play whomever they want, it is the DM and the work the DM does.

In the case of the everlasting "which class is better argument," the DM makes it practically obsolete. Say a party is a rogue, a scout, a ninja, and a spellthief. Well crap, that's underwhelming, right? Wrong. Suddenly, four times the subterfuge is needed and every properly planned CR equivalent combat is a life-or-death challenge. I won't go into too much detail about how awesome this group would be to DM, so I will move on.

But, worse, what if you have a Batman wizard? It's a simple as making more things happen before he sleeps.

Now, I admit, this is hard, and that first group above would be drastically different if the spellthief became a poor fighter in clanky armor. But that is where a new mentality comes in.
So what is needed? A new mentality.

Here is why this is Any system, instead of just 3e. The players and the DM should all realize that they are working together to have the most fun they can.

This stops the dueling problem short, because players with this mentality should not be killing each other. Good roleplayers will find roleplaying reasons to either A) like their companions or B) at least not kill them. It shouldn't be that hard. If people aren't killing each other, then who cares if a wizard beats a fighter everytime?

And it also mitigates the role problem, which is more prevalent in class systems in general. Well, what if you have all strikers in 4e? Or all defenders? Those would be weird groups, but hey, just play to their strengths, adjusting the power and number of encounters per day as is necessary. You might have to give them weak encounters at first to test their limits, but I've never heard a PC complain about getting to completely obliterate something.
And yes, I know, it doesn't let designers off the hook.

I'm just arguing that class imbalance isn't a life threatening problem, nor even a system threatening problem. Know what I mean?

Tempest Fennac
2009-01-10, 03:30 AM
I'm inclined to agree with you about how it's intended to be a cooerative effort. From what I can gather from talking to people, banning spells which allow people to hide while sleeping while using night encounters can help a lot, but I'd personally avoid those due to classing it as being a problem for anyone who needs heavy armour as well as the casters. I'll find an article about it now.

EDIT: Here's the article: http://www.thealexandrian.net/creations/misc/wandering-monster.html , as is http://www.thealexandrian.net/creations/misc/encounter-design.html .

Zincorium
2009-01-10, 03:42 AM
Well, the main problem I have is this:

If the group understands (or at least can understand) your 'new' mentality (which isn't actually new), then there won't be any problems with class balance for people to realize in the first place. It doesn't matter what system you're playing. I love these groups.

However, if a group can't be put together that can agree on the premise of mutual fun, and that's fairly common in my personal experience, then there needs to be at least an officially sanctioned general balance. Fourth edition seems to be the best yet for people who are delaying stabbing each other with cutlery only so long as the game lasts.

Jerthanis
2009-01-10, 03:48 AM
Duels don't matter.

But if you were playing a game, let's say it's a game where you play mutant superheroes, and your DM handed out power cards to each player, and one guy in your group got Hiro Nakamura's power(s)... teleportation, time travel, timestop... and you got the ability to turn your hands into lead and back... would you think your friend got a cooler set of powers, that would come up more often and solve more problems? What if that situation came up without the DM being involved, and you weren't told ahead of time that it would happen?

It's not the end of the world... it's a flaw, and saying it isn't there by saying "Turning your hands into lead is still cool! And it's not like you're fighting the Master of Space and Time, you're working together, so it's alright!" isn't going to make the actual problem go away.

Let me clarify ahead of time though that having one character capable of a higher problem solving capacity than other characters is not necessarily a problem... in fact, I can't even conceive of what a game would look like if every character was absolutely equal at problemsolving. What I disparage is a system that actively cultivates a gap in problemsolving ability at no fault in the players and their decisions.

EDIT:


EDIT: Here's the article: http://www.thealexandrian.net/creations/misc/wandering-monster.html , as is http://www.thealexandrian.net/creations/misc/encounter-design.html .

I don't think this is the real problem with class imbalance. It isn't Wizards blowing through all their spells and doing the most damage and then resting, and then DMs doing nothing about it. It's the fact that one round of spells drastically changes what the encounter, or even the campaign is even about, while one round of nonspellcaster time can at most, change how many HP are left on the field.

Tsotha-lanti
2009-01-10, 04:42 AM
Your premise is flawed. If I'm playing 7th Sea, Vampire (or other WW games), Legend of Five Rings, Pendragon, or any of a host of other games, duels matter a ton, because one of the most typical forms of combat is a one-on-one duel or "duel." d20 L5R mixes this up with, yes, classes.

You're assuming that this has anything to do with player-vs-player conflict, which is just nonsense.

Jerthanis hits another nail on the head: it's not about being able to defeat another PC in combat. It's about being way more powerful and cooler than another PC. YBoT-rules RuneQuest Sorcerers and Shamans make theistic magic-users completely irrelevant with their UNLIMITED (rules-supported) POWER! In Cyberpunk, all role special abilities except the Solo's Combat Sense are pointless and useless. (Well, the Solo variant special abilities are good too, although usually situational.)

The only truly balanced system I can think of is HeroQuest, because everyone uses the same mechanics. There's still differences, but they're mostly in-character; your integrated spirit is mechanically identical to another PC's magical talent, and to a third PC's theistic affinity, and to a fourth PC's sorcerous spells. Indeed, your Swordfighting ability is mechanically identical to another PC's Charming ability. As a tactical game, it would have absolutely no depth because of this. As a mythical storytelling game, it's great because of this. (Except, you know, the augmenting. Ugh.)

OneFamiliarFace
2009-01-10, 04:56 AM
If the group understands (or at least can understand) your 'new' mentality (which isn't actually new), then there won't be any problems with class balance for people to realize in the first place. It doesn't matter what system you're playing. I love these groups.

:smalltongue: I know it's not new. I just meant in respect to the duelist's attitude.


Let me clarify ahead of time though that having one character capable of a higher problem solving capacity than other characters is not necessarily a problem... in fact, I can't even conceive of what a game would look like if every character was absolutely equal at problemsolving. What I disparage is a system that actively cultivates a gap in problemsolving ability at no fault in the players and their decisions.

Ah yeah, and I realize the way I phrased that included a lot of handwaving, but I was running long in the word count. Yeah, an ideal system would allow Stonehands to have the problem solving capabilities of Batman or something like that, to make up for it. But really, even in the show, Nakamura is pretty much just a Deus ex Machina of infinite renewal.

My argument is that in D&D, the DM, not the wizard, is the Deus ex Machina. Where I think 3.5 and systems like it DO run into problems is that it creates situations whereby the DM often has to make certain characters useless to make another useful (ie Anti-magic field). But, one can easily use a little more imagination that your average comic book writer to come up with more than just a Yellow Kryptonite cage (which hurts your Green Lantern wizards and your Superman Druids).

But really, in play, this balance issue and overshadowing issue has never been a problem for me. Because at low to mid levels, Stonefists can bash all day long, but Nakamura has limited range to his teleports and limited uses of his world altering stuff (most of which is only slightly stronger than stone-fists).

What I mean though is this: say a druid can handle 6 enemies in combat by himself, and a fighter can only handle 3. Well, if I keep throwing 6 enemies at them, then the fighter is useless. But if I throw 9, then great. This is still a bit of handwaving, but if you look at some of the comments on 4e fighters, then it is pretty clear that many people deliberately choose 3.5 martial classes because of their lower-powered nature. As long as the wizard doesn't prevent the fighter from hitting things, then the fighter is happy.

Don't get the wrong impression. I have switched over to 4e (because I am primarily a DM, and my players and I both like this system). I'm just saying that I always had fun playing 3.5, and never had too much trouble being slightly worse than a druid or wizard, because my characters were awesome. (I was always a rogue or fighter.)

EDIT: For ninja'd

Jerthanis hits another nail on the head: it's not about being able to defeat another PC in combat. It's about being way more powerful and cooler than another PC.

And I agree with what he said there, which is why I mentioned that as the bulk of my post, after quickly dismissing dueling. Ah, well, I guess I'd never heard about the way Lo5R is played. I suppose if that is the primary form of conflict resolution, then yes, classes would need to be balanced. I still maintain they don't in D&D.

KKL
2009-01-10, 05:32 AM
If people aren't killing each other, then who cares if a wizard beats a fighter everytime?
...The fighter who is constantly being outclassed by the Wizard at every turn?

Or outdone by the Druid?

Or the Cleric?

Townopolis
2009-01-10, 05:41 AM
The problem, for some people, is when you're looking at (for example) a fighter and a druid. Now the fighter has devoted his life's work towards perfecting his combat ability, right? The druid, on the other hand, has devoted his life's work towards communing with and channeling the power of Nature(tm). Now let's put these two guys in a room and tell them to duke it out. The druid annihilates the fighter. Now, let's put them in a room with a bunch of orcs and tell them to duke it out. The druid, once again, greatly outperforms the fighter.

The point I'm trying to make is that the fighter has devoted himself to becoming a Master of Combat and nothing else. Nobody else should be able to touch him in that regard (except, you know, barbarians and paladins and maybe rangers).

When your character is all about X, and someone else (who isn't all about X) comes along and is better than you at X, it effing sucks.

Now, I don't have a problem with power imbalance per se. If I was in a party with a a fighter, a bard, a priest, and a wizard, I'd be fine if the party roles went something along the lines of:

The fighter fights the monsters.
The bard talks to NPCs and has vast stores of mundane knowledge.
The priest heals and cures status effects.
The wizard divines the party's future, teleports around, summons extraplanar entities to give him advice, applies status effects in combat, maintains a pocket plain as the party's headquarters, crafts magic items, deals with all magical phenomena, makes more money than the rest of the party combined, alters the flow of time, and generally takes care of any problem not falling under the direct purview of any of the other characters.


See, there's a pretty serious power imbalance, but I'd be ok with it. If I were the fighter, I wouldn't even mind if the wizard got 3x as much limelight as I did, on one condition. When it came down to squaring off against the baddies and their henchmen, I had better be the most useful party member there, beyond a shadow of a doubt, and I had better outperform the wizard by a lot.

Samakain
2009-01-10, 06:19 AM
I have to say that i agree with the OP completely.

Yes there is a class imbalance thing with 3.5, but in my experience and with my group of players its never really come up as an issue at all. And i think it comes down to the mentality of my group, which after finally looking at online for opinions on 3.5, i'm realizing must be pretty unique.

Its not the wizard throwing the fireball, its the 'party'. Its not the wizard solving the inter-planetary magically orientated problems, its the 'party', its not the rogue picking the lock, or the fighter bull rushing the giant off the cliff. Its not the ranger slotting arrows into anything that moves etc etc, its all the 'party'

I think thats the greatest change in mentality that your going to need. Get over this "but his toys are shiner than mine" crap that seems to purvey alot of players and start realizing that your character is part of a unit, a single freaking entity solely and entirely designed to kick the crap out of things and take there stuff.

And yes i can see the problem about one class out performing another, but seriously mr d4 hit points, cloth robes and a couple of 1st level spells isn't reaching those heights of unfathomable cosmic power unless he has some muscle to hide behind, otherwise he's getting taken out first band of goblins he meets, or if he's really unlucky, the first house cat he pisses off. even at higher levels a good DM is going to use intelligent enemies in such a way as to challenge casters, swap power between players using different situational variables and a whole bag of tricks any good DM brings to the table with him. i'm not sure if this is hand waving so much as keeping things fresh. *shrug*

now i realize this is just my experience vs apparently everybody else. but this is how I've always played D&D, how my players have always viewed the challenges put in front of them, and its been this way with 3 separate groups. Maybe I'm just lucky, i dunno, but I've never run into the more "me" centric party members, and i was more than surprised when i starting reading and posting on here and other places all these "problems" with 3.5 i had never honestly encountered before :P and we game a lot.

anyway, thats my 2 cents

Sa

P.S On one note, i did have the party rogue stab the barbarian with cutlery at one point, but all the rogue was trying to do was prove to the barbarian he had DR : \. long story short, 20's are not always good, and thus was born the Barbarian named Spoon, who lost his memory that tragic day.

Panda-s1
2009-01-10, 06:25 AM
EDIT:


I don't think this is the real problem with class imbalance. It isn't Wizards blowing through all their spells and doing the most damage and then resting, and then DMs doing nothing about it. It's the fact that one round of spells drastically changes what the encounter, or even the campaign is even about, while one round of nonspellcaster time can at most, change how many HP are left on the field.

You bring up some very good points, and it is true, encounter design is something people glanced over too often. For me though, all the stuff people "missed", all the general advice people have been using has been coded into 4e.

But that's aside the point. My stance on the issue is this: as a GM, I have to adjudicate rules, I have to solve disputes, but above all I have to organize a story and make sure my players are having fun. However, as a GM, I should not have to go out of my way to stop what is a potential flaw in the system.

I mean this was not an issue in 1st and 2nd ed. because spells could take forever to prepare. 15 minutes per spell level (10 minutes in 2nd ed.) is quite a bit of time, therefore the party wizard or illusionist wouldn't just blow spells at the slightest provocation. Someone did the calculation for a high level wizard in 1st ed., and the time to prepare spells is around 40-ish non-contiguous hours, something that only happened when the party went back into town. However, this isn't the case in 3rd ed. where a wizard can spend a mere hour to get all his spells back! By doing this, the flood gates opened for wizards blowing all their spells at the small consequence of studying an hour before the day started. In fact the only real way to stop this is by having some huge encounter during the rest where they lose 20-60% of their spells, thereby making them start over where they should have left off in theory. By letting a wizard spend little time to prepare all her spells, it rests on the GM's shoulders to make sure she doesn't take full advantage of this.

This also leads into the problem of clerics only being able to prepare spells once per day at a certain given time, but most likely due to the 15-minute adventuring day most people assume they prepare spells after rest, like a wizard, when in fact they could set an hour aside while in a dungeon just 'cause it was the right time of day. Maybe the designers thought that would balance out the wizard issue, but it failed 'cause too many people didn't notice.

Saph
2009-01-10, 06:32 AM
I think some of you need to go back and read the original post.


Initial conclusions: (for fast reading) 1. Players won't be dueling. 2. What matters is if one class overshadows another.

The title of the thread is "Why duels don't matter." And he's completely right. Way too many people think that having a 20th-level X duel a 20th-level Y proves something, when it doesn't.


I'm just arguing that class imbalance isn't a life threatening problem, nor even a system threatening problem. Know what I mean?

Yeah, I do. There are some people who think it should be, though. I've given up trying to show why it isn't an issue, as I've found that the people who complain the most about class imbalance usually migrate to other systems given enough time, making the problem self-correcting.

- Saph

Blood_Lord
2009-01-10, 10:04 AM
I think some of you need to go back and read the original post.

The title of the thread is "Why duels don't matter." And he's completely right. Way too many people think that having a 20th-level X duel a 20th-level Y proves something, when it doesn't.

Except that he started with that premise, and ended with the conclusion that because duels don't matter, class imbalance doesn't matter. And so people have addressed that.

That's why you don't quote the whole post, because that's what he says at then end.

finnmckool
2009-01-10, 02:21 PM
I concur that duels don't matter, but I also have to echo the sentiment of redundancy being a problem.

If, for example we all have the same strengths, things get well, boring! Even if we are all really good at the same thing (meaning no one class is better than the other at defending but they are, as you say all defenders) then the GM's job isn't just harder, its almost impossible. Every one is performing the same strategic role and trick. And if we're all defenders and one class is head and shoulders better at it than another? You're redundant. And that's just no fun. For instance I was in a d20 SW game. Tended toward combat a lot. I was a Jedi, another guy was a scoundrel. He was an awesome pilot, but in combat his options tended to be limited to "I fire my blaster twice." Now obviously that was not all he could do but you could see that my Jedi's glowing stick of doom vexed him a bit, as did the bounty hunter's boom cannon. And the wookiee's cleave machine.

This was one of my problems with SWSE. I felt like a lot of the customization and optimization had been removed with the loss of the skill system and the new set up. I felt like it removed a lot of the "being fast like a freak" builds, and reduced diversity in "being good with the Force". I felt like the old system had lots and lots of sub categories and crossover possible between "being good with a lightsaber" and "being good with the force" or consular/guardian types. My point being that while you're absolutely right in that "just because I can take you in a duel doesn't necessarily mean 'broken'" there is something to be said for balance and diversity in a system and a party because it's one of those larger issues that can become a CONSTANT thorn in your side. Sure a good GM can mitigate that damage, but for how long? How many really cool combat scenarios have to get tossed to the side because you just KNOW that one to three of your players are going to be doing absolutely nothing at all because the other one to three of your players are going to be just owning the scene?

PS: Totally thought you meant "the duel" as in the actual in game moment and I was totally going to beat you about the head with the dramatic moment stick. As a guy that loves playing a Jedi, I LIVE for the duel.

horseboy
2009-01-11, 04:47 AM
See, there's a pretty serious power imbalance, but I'd be ok with it. If I were the fighter, I wouldn't even mind if the wizard got 3x as much limelight as I did, on one condition. When it came down to squaring off against the baddies and their henchmen, I had better be the most useful party member there, beyond a shadow of a doubt, and I had better outperform the wizard by a lot.Yeah, I'm going to agree with this a lot.
The title of the thread is "Why duels don't matter." And he's completely right. Way too many people think that having a 20th-level X duel a 20th-level Y proves something, when it doesn'tExcept the moment you go up against an enemy with class levels you are Z-level X facing (z+-q)level Y. So it can come up quite often.

turkishproverb
2009-01-11, 05:01 AM
Yeah, I'm going to agree with this a lot. Except the moment you go up against an enemy with class levels you are Z-level X facing (z+-q)level Y. So it can come up quite often.

Not really. Because again, that is a duel and is a seperate issue from most normal gameplay.

I think a better way to handle class comparisons without factoring in the rest of a party, and assuming skilled players (skilled enough to build a fraction of these semi game breaking characters) would be to see what characters could make it through various solo adventures.

I've found I can get a monk through most adventures with about the same results in terms of survival and success as the other non casters, for example, which effects my opinion in that debate.

Eldariel
2009-01-11, 10:05 AM
I have to say, it's a pretty stupid premise to say "yes, yes, the system sucks, suck it up". The game specifically gives all the strings to the DM, so why not to improve upon the system when given a chance, especially with tons of material around online?

No, duels don't mean much, but that doesn't change the fact that some classes just do everything better than others, and some require less savvy building than others to be good. Also, some plain offer more options in play, which tends to make especially longstanding games more enjoyable to the player.

lord_khaine
2009-01-11, 10:45 AM
i also agree on that Duel's doesnt matter, but unfortunately the same doesnt apply to the class imbalance, though i also think its mostly a problem in Core.

horseboy
2009-01-11, 04:52 PM
Not really. Because again, that is a duel and is a separate issue from most normal gameplay.

I think a better way to handle class comparisons without factoring in the rest of a party, and assuming skilled players (skilled enough to build a fraction of these semi game breaking characters) would be to see what characters could make it through various solo adventures.
So you never come across enemies that have class levels, or does the party always out number such enemies in said encounters? Cause well, if the monk is getting pwned by the orc's cleric, batman is busy saving him, the thief is busy picking batman's pockets, CoDzilla is over in flesh raker form off tanking the four sub-chieftains with his AC and summoned celestial bison who's going to help the fighter with the BBEG and the two snipers up in balconies on the opposite sides of the room? There's only so much support that can go around in a party.
There you've got Monk vs Cleric, Wizard vs Cleric, Druid vs up to 4 different classes, fighter vs BBEG's class and a chaotic stupid player (cause there's one in every bunch).

RPGuru1331
2009-01-11, 05:03 PM
That's not 4 duels though. At least, it doesn't have to be, your example is just phrasing it as such. That's his point.

Personally, duels are symptomatic. They don't necessarily speak to imbalance; Sometimes it's just that rock usually beats scissors (A Theoretical mage slayer who beat wizards most of the time, and yes, I know, it doesn't work that way with DnD magic). But, it's a red flag that something could be wrong (For instance, that a Monk will lose to pretty much anyone in a duel.) Not always though; Someone who's support only affected allies, for instance..

turkishproverb
2009-01-11, 11:07 PM
That's not 4 duels though. At least, it doesn't have to be, your example is just phrasing it as such. That's his point.

Personally, duels are symptomatic. They don't necessarily speak to imbalance; Sometimes it's just that rock usually beats scissors (A Theoretical mage slayer who beat wizards most of the time, and yes, I know, it doesn't work that way with DnD magic). But, it's a red flag that something could be wrong (For instance, that a Monk will lose to pretty much anyone in a duel.) Not always though; Someone who's support only affected allies, for instance..

Basically waht you said, but to make it clearer:


So you never come across enemies that have class levels, or does the party always out number such enemies in said encounters?

You are missing the point of my post and how it addressed using SOLO adventures to test the comparative effect of classes.

And yes, I frequently face enemies with class levels in games, both in solo sessions and otherwise. Since most of my DM's are the "AS IS" types, they can even be higher level.



Cause well, if the monk is getting pwned by the orc's cleric, batman is busy saving him, the thief is busy picking batman's pockets, CoDzilla is over in flesh raker form off tanking the four sub-chieftains with his AC and summoned celestial bison who's going to help the fighter with the BBEG and the two snipers up in balconies on the opposite sides of the room? There's only so much support that can go around in a party.
There you've got Monk vs Cleric, Wizard vs Cleric, Druid vs up to 4 different classes, fighter vs BBEG's class and a chaotic stupid player (cause there's one in every bunch).

Ah, what? That was a big mess of a description, and involved my monk mysteriously either having PC's with him in a solo adventure or else managing to be "chaotic stupid"

Once again, you missed the ENTIRE point of what I said, including the fact the only class is specifically defended was the Monk, whom I only said got "similar" results to other non casters. Not identical, similar.

Also, I repeat it was similar results to other Non Casters. A term which voids most of the rest of your comment as a reaction to mine.

AmberVael
2009-01-11, 11:56 PM
And lo, there came a thread to the land of giants, and when it paused to rest, its gaze fell upon the Cauldron of Turmoil. Though mightily it strove to exercise prudence and caution, it could not hold back the reins of curiosity for long, and with puzzlement it rose and made its way to the blackened vessel. And oh, though it tried to stay its hand, it took up the ladle of that dread engine of dispute and stirred the virulent vintage within, causing the once idle giants to stir and roar at each other, causing a din that rang from one side of the great forum to the other...

Translation: Oh great. You know all the arguments this is going to cause?

My input: the importance of balance between character powers changes depending on the game system, the characters, and the players you're roleplaying with. Attempting one broad "it matters" or "it doesn't matter" will likely not work.

Blood_Lord
2009-01-11, 11:59 PM
A lot of stuff.

I think the point is that no matter how you test it, actual adventuring groups have to deal with the situation presented.

And so it really does matter if a Monk is incapable of beating a Cleric, because it means the Wizard has to help him instead of helping the Fighter, who is also incapable of beating the Wizard BBEG.

Class imbalance matters, no matter how you test it, if Wizards are better then Fighters at all things, that's a problem for the game, because at some point, for some reason, the Fighter is going to be facing an NPC Wizard without help from anyone else.

Neon Knight
2009-01-12, 12:04 AM
As many other people have pointed out, NPC with class levels are perfectly viable opponents. It's odd how often the Wizard Who Did It turns out to be a regular old human straight classed.

So, class imbalance can be an issue, even if the PCs never fight each other.

Khanderas
2009-01-12, 07:47 AM
As mentioned in Fighter vs Druid threads everywhere (and atleast one post further up).
Problem isn't who has the shiniest tools. Problems arise when a Fighter, who basically knows nothing but fightning, is in every way worse at it then a Druid, who also have an animal companion, wildshape and spells.

ShneekeyTheLost
2009-01-12, 10:18 AM
Duels don't matter. Being not-worthless matters.

A Druid20 is a better tank than a Fighter with a half-dozen PrC's which are specifically designed to try and make him a better tank.

A Wizard can make a skillmonkey easily obsolete.

Rogue: I want to try and bluff this guy to...
Wizard *Interrupts*: Charm Person, DC 28.

Rogue: I make a Hide check and...
Wizard: Invisibility. Not only can I do this for myself, I can cover the clanking tank, making it even more useful to the party.

Rogue: I carefully search for traps...
Wizard: Summon Monster 1, and send the summoned monster through the suspicious hallways far enough in front of us that we won't get caught if any traps do go off. And none of the party members are risked in the process.

Rogue: Well, I can do this all day long...
Wizard: If I run low on spells, I just cast Rope Trick/MMM and completely replenish my magic.

The problem isn't just that the Wizard is better at being a rogue than a rogue, it's that his 'rogue-ability' is even more useful because it can be applied to the whole party, or prevent the chance of any party member being harmed. Guaranteed.

Now try and play a Rogue in a campaign with this wizard and see how much fun you have.

Saph
2009-01-12, 10:32 AM
Now try and play a Rogue in a campaign with this wizard and see how much fun you have.

I've done it. It wasn't hard. But then, being more effective than a Wizard as incompetent as that wouldn't be . . .

- Saph

ShneekeyTheLost
2009-01-12, 01:22 PM
I've done it. It wasn't hard. But then, being more effective than a Wizard as incompetent as that wouldn't be . . .

- Saph

So what did you end up doing, besides making the players coffee while the Wizard went about making your character obsolete?

Tacoma
2009-01-12, 01:44 PM
It's really about the dreaded Best Choice and Worst Choice. Nobody ever takes the Worst Choice and many people will generally take the Best Choice.

In D&D, the best choice is a wizard, druid, maybe warblade. If someone wanted to play a melee character why would he choose something other than a warblade? Why take levels as a Harper Agent? Or a Commoner?

It's okay to have a large range of good choices, and okay to have a bunch of bad choices. But D&D attempts to suggest that all the PC classes are good choices, PrC are better choices if you choose one appropriate to your class, and NPC classes are the worst choices.

But some PC classes suck compared to others. Fighter really gets shafted, as he always has. But in some ways Paladin is worse. Many many PrC are completely useless while others are far and away the best choices. When someone says they want to play a Wizard, they're always told the same two or three PrC selections. Same with Bard.

As game designers their job was, in part, to make sure as many choices as possible were good, and of equal goodness to each other. I don't think it's too much to ask that every base class is well balanced against the others and every PrC is balanced against the others. That includes giving the PrC better abilities if it requires a bunch of crummy feat prerequisites that nobody would otherwise want. Because not every feat can be of completely equal usefulness (though they should in general be somewhat balanced).

At first blush all this requires is slightly nerfing the best choice and slightly buffing the worst choice, then playtesting until the new order shakes out. Then continue with iterative rounds of slight nerfs and slight buffs until you get things as balanced as possible. And maybe some choices are still better - but not so much better that they're always said to be the best.

horseboy
2009-01-12, 05:43 PM
You are missing the point of my post and how it addressed using SOLO adventures to test the comparative effect of classes.

And yes, I frequently face enemies with class levels in games, both in solo sessions and otherwise. Since most of my DM's are the "AS IS" types, they can even be higher level.




Ah, what? That was a big mess of a description, and involved my monk mysteriously either having PC's with him in a solo adventure or else managing to be "chaotic stupid"

Once again, you missed the ENTIRE point of what I said,
including the fact the only class is specifically defended was the Monk, whom I only said got "similar" results to other non casters. Not identical, similar.

Also, I repeat it was similar results to other Non Casters. A term which voids most of the rest of your comment as a reaction to mine.
You said:

Not really. Because again, that is a duel and is a separate issue from most normal gameplay.I showed how duels show up even in group play with a fairly typical encounter for a 5 man party. I used monk as the 5th man since you brought them up. Anyway, point is the duel is the first step in play testing a combat oriented class, like fighters and monks. That they fail so hard just goes to show the extremely lack luster play testing done on 3.x.

Renegade Paladin
2009-01-12, 05:52 PM
One thing you overlook is that all it takes for class balance to matter is for the DM to use monsters with class levels or *gasp!* humanoid NPCs as the antagonists. Then you're right back to the problem of a fighter barely being a speedbump unless he's many levels higher than the group, and a wizard being a potentially fatal encounter.

lord_khaine
2009-01-12, 06:32 PM
Rogue: I carefully search for traps...
Wizard: Summon Monster 1, and send the summoned monster through the suspicious hallways far enough in front of us that we won't get caught if any traps do go off. And none of the party members are risked in the process.

i disagree about this, far to often its just not possible, because of the limitet duration summon monster has, and you cant even be sure your monster is able to trigger the traps you are looking for.


Rogue: Well, I can do this all day long...
Wizard: If I run low on spells, I just cast Rope Trick/MMM and completely replenish my magic.


i disagree with this as well, i have yet to play in a campaign where that was possible.

Blood_Lord
2009-01-12, 07:45 PM
Indeed, I don't think it's very easy for a Wizard to adequately replace a Rogue, since some DMs will just set up 6 locked doors in a row. And often the most devastating of traps are the Alarm Traps.

However, I do think it is very easy for a party or Wizard/Rogue/Cleric/Druid or Wizard/Rogue/Cleric/Wizard to easily do much better in any situation then a Fighter.

Glitterdust plus Rogue full attack with Rapid Shot + TWF + thrown weapons equals dead things.

Ect.

Damage is easily accomplished on a cripple, and Wizards are very good at the Crippling.

Bassetking
2009-01-12, 08:09 PM
Yeah, an ideal system would allow Stonehands to have the problem solving capabilities of Batman or something like that, to make up for it.

We'll take this one first.

Ok, so, we're going to give Stonehands access to Batman's level of problem solving ability, to bring him up to par with, we'll just use an example, Superman.

Batman's problem solving ability, while potent, becomes vastly less effective without infinite WBL, a vast information network, and an entire GE-style corporation funding and researching the tools he then uses to solve his problems.

It's only through massive injections of assistance that Batman is able to stand toe to toe with Superman.

A more accurate comparison between a Wizard/Druid and a Fighter would be Superman vs. Ted "Wildcat" Grant.



But, one can easily use a little more imagination that your average comic book writer to come up with more than just a Yellow Kryptonite cage (which hurts your Green Lantern wizards and your Superman Druids).

So Superman uses his heat-vision to cut the billboard off of a nearby building, smashing the cage. So he pulls up handfulls of earth from under the cage, and smashes it apart with them, avoiding touching the bars. So he uses his arctic breath, and lowers the bars temperature past their shattering point, and frees himself when he falls into them, as he passes out. So he uses his X-ray vision to give his captor terminal bone cancer, and promises only to fly him to a hospital if he lets him go. So he opens the bottled city of Kandor, and blows up the cage from the inside.

So Green Lantern uses his ring to pull a tree over, and smashes apart the cage. So Green Lantern uses his ring to plate the cage with other substances, allowing him to manipulate it. So Green Lantern creates little green energy friends that go and get the keys for him.

Ted "Wildcat" Grant, on the other hand, is sitting there, locked in a big metal cage, unable to do anything other than punch the bars real hard.

Even when you are setting out to directly and specifically, through GM fiat, cripple and hinder the High-Option Classes, they are STILL going to outshine the Low-Option.



But really, in play, this balance issue and overshadowing issue has never been a problem for me. Because at low to mid levels, Stonefists can bash all day long, but Nakamura has limited range to his teleports and limited uses of his world altering stuff (most of which is only slightly stronger than stone-fists). In the example cited, we had one guy who could turn his fists into lead, and one guy who can not only stop time, but travel through it.

No matter how long Stonefist can keep swinging, I've got to give that contest to the guy who can keep Stonefist's parents from hooking up, and removing him from existence.

Crow
2009-01-12, 08:56 PM
So I often run into discussions on this board (as well as other places) whereby people attempt to prove the efficacy or quality of a given roleplaying system by citing the results of duels between various types of characters.

Initial Discussion:

Point buy and skill based systems don't seem to suffer this same problem. Rather, it resides primarily in class based systems. We all know what I am talking about: Wizard v Fighter (2000-present).

The first argument, that the system is broken because a fighter could never beat a wizard, doesn't make any sense to me. Most every roleplaying system is designed for a group of people to fight imaginary other people (or monsters). So I guess I don't particularly care if a wizard can kill a fighter. If my players are fighting that bad, then the game isn't going to last much longer anyway.

The second argument is the one I am concerned with: That a certain class overshadows or makes useless another class' role.

For example, if a Scout is directly better than a Rogue, then this only matters if one player wants to play a Scout and another a Rogue (Or, likewise for 4e, if a Warlord is better than a Shaman).
Initial conclusions: (for fast reading) 1. Players won't be dueling. 2. What matters is if one class overshadows another.

Solution: short answer - The DM (and heck, The Players too)

When we sign up to be a DM, we shoulder a certain amount of work with that assignment, which is what, in fact, makes roleplaying games so great. It isn't the class or the point buy that allows players to play whomever they want, it is the DM and the work the DM does.

In the case of the everlasting "which class is better argument," the DM makes it practically obsolete. Say a party is a rogue, a scout, a ninja, and a spellthief. Well crap, that's underwhelming, right? Wrong. Suddenly, four times the subterfuge is needed and every properly planned CR equivalent combat is a life-or-death challenge. I won't go into too much detail about how awesome this group would be to DM, so I will move on.

But, worse, what if you have a Batman wizard? It's a simple as making more things happen before he sleeps.

Now, I admit, this is hard, and that first group above would be drastically different if the spellthief became a poor fighter in clanky armor. But that is where a new mentality comes in.
So what is needed? A new mentality.

Here is why this is Any system, instead of just 3e. The players and the DM should all realize that they are working together to have the most fun they can.

This stops the dueling problem short, because players with this mentality should not be killing each other. Good roleplayers will find roleplaying reasons to either A) like their companions or B) at least not kill them. It shouldn't be that hard. If people aren't killing each other, then who cares if a wizard beats a fighter everytime?

And it also mitigates the role problem, which is more prevalent in class systems in general. Well, what if you have all strikers in 4e? Or all defenders? Those would be weird groups, but hey, just play to their strengths, adjusting the power and number of encounters per day as is necessary. You might have to give them weak encounters at first to test their limits, but I've never heard a PC complain about getting to completely obliterate something.
And yes, I know, it doesn't let designers off the hook.

I'm just arguing that class imbalance isn't a life threatening problem, nor even a system threatening problem. Know what I mean?

I agree with you. Apparently a lot of other people aren't bothered by class imbalances either because the 4e stuff at our FLGS is dusty as hell, while the 3.5 stuff is still 30 bucks a book.

chiasaur11
2009-01-12, 09:06 PM
A more accurate comparison between a Wizard/Druid and a Fighter would be Superman vs. Ted "Wildcat" Kord.


.

Uh... Ted Kord's the Blue Beetle (who is reasonably well off fiscally).

Ted GRANT is Wildcat.

Sorry. Compulsive nitpicker.

Bassetking
2009-01-12, 09:12 PM
Uh... Ted Kord's the Blue Beetle (who is reasonably well off fiscally).

Ted GRANT is Wildcat.

Sorry. Compulsive nitpicker.

I DO NOT KNOW WHAT YOU COULD BE REFERRING TO WHAT EDIT I DO NOT KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT <_<

Alleine
2009-01-12, 09:14 PM
I totally read the title as "Why Rules don't (or shouldn't) matter."
That was a little surprising until my eyes decided to see it correctly.

Deepblue706
2009-01-12, 09:24 PM
I agree with you. Apparently a lot of other people aren't bothered by class imbalances either because the 4e stuff at our FLGS is dusty as hell, while the 3.5 stuff is still 30 bucks a book.

Maybe those people have DMs who aren't repeatedly stabbing themselves in the skull with a spork, in hopes of harvesting their own delicious brain-meats, instead of trying to make use of the tools available to provide appropriate challenges and encounters for an entire party.

The DM is the ultimate balancing factor, people. And the methods a DM employs to keep balance between classes don't have to appear arbitrary unless that DM is just bad at DMing. Frankly, I'm amazed how the opinions on some matters, such as the power of Wizards, Clerics and Druids have gone from mere hypothetical possibility in hands of a mindless DM, to the absolute, indisputable truth for all campaigns. This stuff only gets wonky if your DM just hasn't bothered to think about it.

turkishproverb
2009-01-12, 09:29 PM
You said:
I showed how duels show up even in group play with a fairly typical encounter for a 5 man party. I used monk as the 5th man since you brought them up. Anyway, point is the duel is the first step in play testing a combat oriented class, like fighters and monks. That they fail so hard just goes to show the extremely lack luster play testing done on 3.x.

Why would a duel be a remotely good way of play testing a class unless the game were primary about duels?

Furthermore, why do you bring up both fighters and monks in this post, and Clerics and Druds and Wizards in the last since the only controversial comment I made related to class balance discoveries through my method was that monks are in game play reasonably close to other non casters, not effecting the caster issues you kept bringing up.

You wrote about the "party" out numbering in relation to my comment about a solo adventure, and then proceed into a garbled fight description in an effort to claim superiority in a type of play/play testing that wouldn't even allow for events like that by a remotely traditional definition.

Your examples, both in this post and your last served no point in relation to my comments, rather merely restating points already made that frankly had little or nothing to do with mine (IE: The batman wizard helps the monk instead of the fighter etc...)

If you wish to argue the superiority of playtesting through Duels in a class based system, please make an effort to explain both why you think it is superior or equal, and why you found my suggestion that sending characters of roughly equal optimization through solo adventures was so wrong.

Tequila Sunrise
2009-01-12, 09:33 PM
I'm just arguing that class imbalance isn't a life threatening problem, nor even a system threatening problem.
Here here!

woodenbandman
2009-01-12, 10:30 PM
I'm going to say that while a wizard shouldn't fight a fighter nor step into his territory, he often does both unintentionally. A wizard can, with narry a thought:

Summon a fighter better than their party's fighter;
Turn himself into a better fighter than the fighter could ever be, be it via limited wish, polymorph, or other buffs;
Kill any enemy that even thinks about coming near the party;
Make the party invisible, and thus able to walk past the encounter;
Teleport the party away from the encounter;
Make himself invincible;
Make anything near him so vincible that it dies with a single blow;

So it's not that a wizard will win against a fighter; it's that a wizard will win against anything that is meant to challenge a fighter, probably better than the fighter could ever win against said thing, and win against anything else ever, and still have a spell slot left over to make himself invincible long enough to prepare his spells for the next day.

And the DM being the ultimate balancing factor is true, but there are several things I'd like to point out.
1: The best defense is a good offense. Fight spell with spell.
2: Make your players aware of the potential imbalance in a party containing a wizard and a fighter. Talk to the wizard player, talk to the fighter player, talk to everyone. There's nothing worse than getting nerf'd midcombat. Best let the players agree on it themselves, because we can get attached to a character.
3: Don't put a leash on wizards just cuz'. Tell your players if you don't want to run that kind of campaign, and if you do, then tell them that.

OneFamiliarFace
2009-01-18, 09:16 PM
Summon a fighter better than their party's fighter;
Turn himself into a better fighter than the fighter could ever be, be it via limited wish, polymorph, or other buffs;
Kill any enemy that even thinks about coming near the party;
Make the party invisible, and thus able to walk past the encounter;
Teleport the party away from the encounter;
Make himself invincible;
Make anything near him so vincible that it dies with a single blow;

I'm going to keep going because the thread is remaining quite civil. Thanks for that, everyone.

I agree with all of these advantages, but (though I don't have my 3.5 books with me) I am pretty sure that the wizard can't do most of these until about half-way through the game. The ultimate problem with class balance in 3.5, in my opinion, was not that one class was more powerful than another, but that designers seemed to think that disadvantages at early levels made up for advantages at higher levels.

But what it really does is serve to ensure that a wizard is using a crossbow on most rounds until level 5, and that a fighter is often overshadowed by a druid after level 10 (of course that last part is really more a problem with polymorph mechanics than class balance specifically).

Still, my main argument was only that such imbalances and overshadowings do NOT spell death to the system. I played a rogue in a party full of clerics, druids, and sorcerers, and I managed to hold my own from level 1-16 (being the best damage dealer from 1-6). This was despite the fact that the DM mostly made featureless rooms and had a houserule that I could only sneak attack once per round. It was mostly about clever thinking. If nothing else, my presence allowed the casters to be able to free up the spell slots they normally would have used for skill monkey and mobility stuff.

But the key is that I liked being underpowered. When I accomplished something, it wasn't because a spell said I did. It was because I thought, acted, and rolled well. In 4e, I don't really have the opportunity to play the party underdog who is underpowered but comes through at all the right moments. That is fine, and I've switched to 4e because I like that the classes are all viable from 1-30 (vastly different from 3.5 where even the all-powerful Batman Wizard has a series of dead levels at first).

So, to reiterate my last point (and that of a few other posters), class balance isn't necessary for a system, because some players and groups don't feel it is. My only evidence is what they say and that I DM'd 3.x for the whole time it was out and with a minimal amount of houseruling, and I never really experienced these issues in my groups. I think it is more of an issue for groups who insist on starting at level 10 or so.