PDA

View Full Version : Define "Balanced"



BRC
2009-11-29, 11:46 AM
I hear people say "Wizards, Druids, and Clerics are not balanced, they are too powerful"
I hear people say "Monks and fighters are not balanced, they are too weak".

Now, I understand why Wizards, Druids, and Clerics are more powerful than Monks and Fighters. But people say that all these classes are Broken.

so, what is the Baseline that people are comparing classes to when they talk about balance?

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-11-29, 11:53 AM
Generally tiers 2-3 have interesting mechanics, always have something to do in combat, can't become immortal, and leave the game playable. Tier 4 is somewhat more limited, but still usable.

For reference, I'm talking Psionics, ToB, MoI, Factotum, Beguiler, Dread Necromancer, and similar classes.

Tshern
2009-11-29, 11:54 AM
One argument I have seen floating around pretty often is that the character should win 50% of encounters against his CR. That means that a level 20 character should win 50% of fights against a Balor.

PurinaDragonCho
2009-11-29, 11:55 AM
I think most of the balance issues people complain about assume a 20 level optimized build, facing a single encounter in which you know what you're going to face. A full caster will win those every time.

In actual game situations, I don't see balance problems so much... the fighter can swing his weapon all day, and casters will run out of spells. Although I agree the monk class is pretty weak. In actual play, they don't seem particularly effective.

BRC
2009-11-29, 11:56 AM
Generally tiers 2-3 have interesting mechanics, always have something to do in combat, can't become immortal, and leave the game playable. Tier 4 is somewhat more limited, but still usable.

For reference, I'm talking Psionics, ToB, MoI, Factotum, Beguiler, Dread Necromancer, and similar classes.
So, there are no balanced classes in Core?

Also, I wasn't asking about Tiers, I was asking what people are using to determine if a class is or is not balanced. You know "A wizard is roughly 2 times as powerful as Class X, so it's broken. A Monk is about 30% as powerful as Class X, so it's broken"

Radiun
2009-11-29, 11:56 AM
I hear people say "Wizards, Druids, and Clerics are not balanced, they are too powerful"
I hear people say "Monks and fighters are not balanced, they are too weak".

Now, I understand why Wizards, Druids, and Clerics are more powerful than Monks and Fighters. But people say that all these classes are Broken.

so, what is the Baseline that people are comparing classes to when they talk about balance?

People always complain, but remember that balance does not necessarily equate to fun.

That being said, 'overpowered' classes can do nearly anything imaginable if built towards that purpose. Underpowered classes tend to have 1 function, but don't excel at it by themselves.

At least, that's what I've come to understand.

Boci
2009-11-29, 11:57 AM
In actual game situations, I don't see balance problems so much... the fighter can swing his weapon all day, and casters will run out of spells. Although I agree the monk class is pretty weak. In actual play, they don't seem particularly effective.

How many times does a caster run out of spells? It varies from game to game, but in my current one we have 2 fighter per day tops. I'm sure there are other games where there are more, but DMs generally do not like to pack too many challanges into one day.


So, there are no balanced classes in Core?

Not really. The catsers are all far more powerful then the melee.


Also, I wasn't asking about Tiers, I was asking what people are using to determine if a class is or is not balanced. You know "A wizard is roughly 2 times as powerful as Class X, so it's broken. A Monk is about 30% as powerful as Class X, so it's broken"

X are the tier 3 classes.

jmbrown
2009-11-29, 11:58 AM
One argument I have seen floating around pretty often is that the character should win 50% of encounters against his CR. That means that a level 20 character should win 50% of fights against a Balor.

More accurately, an encounter of equal ECL to the party should use up 30% of their resources. Tier 1 characters can blow their best spells then retreat to an untouchable position to rest until the next day. The only way the DM can counter this is through time restrictions or sending other tier 1 characters out and frankly it becomes unrealistic to assume there's an army of 20th level wizards specifically designed to kill the 20th level PC wizard.

ken-do-nim
2009-11-29, 11:59 AM
I consider Bard, Barbarian, Paladin, and Rogue as the baseline classes of the PHB.

Edit: My definition of baseline has less to do with CR and more to do with meaningfully contribute about 75% of the time.

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-11-29, 11:59 AM
So, there are no balanced classes in Core? Barb and Rogue are balanced, if a bit weak. Other than that, no. There aren't.
Also, I wasn't asking about Tiers, I was asking what people are using to determine if a class is or is not balanced. You know "A wizard is roughly 2 times as powerful as Class X, so it's broken. A Monk is about 30% as powerful as Class X, so it's broken"Generally, it's potential to break the game. Wizards can do anything at all, so they're broken. A Monk can't hit, can't deal damage, can't do anything but survive, so he's broken. It's not numbers, it's capabilities.

Tshern
2009-11-29, 12:09 PM
More accurately, an encounter of equal ECL to the party should use up 30% of their resources. Tier 1 characters can blow their best spells then retreat to an untouchable position to rest until the next day. The only way the DM can counter this is through time restrictions or sending other tier 1 characters out and frankly it becomes unrealistic to assume there's an army of 20th level wizards specifically designed to kill the 20th level PC wizard.
That is not what I said. A balanced class or a character for that matter at level 20, when put to a challenge against a ten random CR 20 monsters one at a time, should with RNG win five matches and lose five. This is, because a party of four level 20 characters should be able to take down four such encounters a day.

However, that is a theoretical approach and not my invention. Make what you want of it.

lord_khaine
2009-11-29, 12:19 PM
Generally, it's potential to break the game. Wizards can do anything at all, so they're broken. A Monk can't hit, can't deal damage, can't do anything but survive, so he's broken. It's not numbers, it's capabilities.


It might not be the strongest class, but thats just plain wrong.

Tyndmyr
2009-11-29, 12:49 PM
In theory, balanced classes perform at roughly equal levels in general. Not at the same tasks, but in terms of overall power. Encounters is the easiest way to measure this, but out of combat utility can add to a class as well.

In terms of encounter killing, yeah, a monk is going to seriously suffer compared to other classes at high levels.

sofawall
2009-11-29, 12:57 PM
It might not be the strongest class, but thats just plain wrong.

Compared to a full melee class, it has a significantly lower chance of hitting, a significantly lower damage output, and are not very useful outside of Spring Attacking in such a way that they do 1 hit per round, and completely avoid counter-attacks.

HailDiscordia
2009-11-29, 01:00 PM
I think that the main thing that factors in is the style of play that a group has. A wizard can do a ton of stuff, no doubt about that. But not everyone memorizes glitterdust and ray of enfeeblement in the low levels and optimizes their build. Sometimes the character does not fit that. A character should not just be a sum of it's powers. They should have personality and a role in the group. Maybe the contribution of a monk isn't in combat, perhaps the player brings a lot to the game and finds ways to make the character work. When I look back at the many, many games I've been a part of rarely is power the first thing I remember.

horseboy
2009-11-29, 01:01 PM
How relevant is your character without the DM having to throw a PF or a nerf your way. I really think this is one of the reasons most modern systems have converted over to the Points based system, that way any disparity in interparty power is purely created by player desire, rather than bad class design.

Boci
2009-11-29, 01:03 PM
I think that the main thing that factors in is the style of play that a group has. A wizard can do a ton of stuff, no doubt about that. But not everyone memorizes glitterdust and ray of enfeeblement in the low levels and optimizes their build. Sometimes the character does not fit that. A character should not just be a sum of it's powers. They should have personality and a role in the group. Maybe the contribution of a monk isn't in combat, perhaps the player brings a lot to the game and finds ways to make the character work. When I look back at the many, many games I've been a part of rarely is power the first thing I remember.

Of course, it was only a matter of time. Obvious, this player who brought a lot to the table could not have done so if he was playing a decent class.

Grynning
2009-11-29, 01:07 PM
bal⋅anced
  /ˈbælənst/
–adjective
1. being in harmonious or proper arrangement or adjustment, proportion, etc.
...

Synonyms:
1. fair, equitable, just, impartial, evenhanded.


I'm not just being cheeky, really :smalltongue:

The definition above does kind of work when applied to games though. When people are crying out for game balance (in any game, not just D&D) they want a game where classes, powers, spells, whatever are unique, but equal to one another in terms of strength and versatility. In other words, they want things to be fair.

In 3.5, this means classes with in and out of combat options that are approximately as useful as those of the other classes that they are expected to be played alongside of.

Oslecamo
2009-11-29, 01:08 PM
So, there are no balanced classes in Core?


Barbarian and rogue are considered quite balanced. Paladin and bard are somewhat weaker in core only, but throw them some splatbooks and they get pretty good whitout becoming broken.

BenTheJester
2009-11-29, 01:19 PM
I think that the main thing that factors in is the style of play that a group has. A wizard can do a ton of stuff, no doubt about that. But not everyone memorizes glitterdust and ray of enfeeblement in the low levels and optimizes their build. Sometimes the character does not fit that. A character should not just be a sum of it's powers. They should have personality and a role in the group. Maybe the contribution of a monk isn't in combat, perhaps the player brings a lot to the game and finds ways to make the character work. When I look back at the many, many games I've been a part of rarely is power the first thing I remember.

That's not how balance works. You can't say a class is balanced because of how players use it.

erikun
2009-11-29, 01:35 PM
Listing of Tiers (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=1002.0)

Now, a class or series of abilities can be considered balanced when it can participate roughly the same amount as another balanced class. For example, a Barbarian is very mobile and can fight very well, but runs into problems when facing a locked door it can't break down, or trying to convince the local lord to send troops to a conflict. A rogue is good at sneaking around, or gathering information, or getting rid of a humanoid from being. They don't fair too well against a golem, or extended combat, or grappling a wizard to the ground.

Conversely, a Wizard and a Druid can be considered balanced, as while the Wizard has magic which can do a wider range of things, the Druid has abilities (wildshape, animal companion) to fill in which doesn't tax her resources.

The problem is that "balanced" in a vaccuum doesn't mean anything. Something is only balanced compared to something else. The Monk is balanced compared to the soulknife and fighter, and stronger than a commoner. The unarmed Swordsage is balanced compared to a Psychic Warrior, but stronger than a Monk.


Now I consider Psionics to be "balanced" in the sense that most psionic character can participate at roughly the same level at the same time. Prestige classes offer a choice between better class abilities in exchange for lost manifester levels, thus making prestige classes a choice between full manifesting and other benefits. There are other classes which are roughly in the same power level (Tome of Battle, Barbarians, spontaneous casters) so it doesn't leave all the base classes behind.

Of course, that's just what I consider balanced - or rather, what I consider as the baseline for D&D. Other people have different ideas. Some people prefer gritter games, where the Fighter or Rogue are the baseline. In that case, most magic classes and stuff like Tome of Battle will be overpowered and unbalanced. Other people prefer the high-magic style of Wizards and Clerics, and consider everything below Tier 1 to be underpowered and unbalancing.


So, there are no balanced classes in Core?
Using my baseline of balance, the Barbarian, Bard, and Rogue would be balanced. (although the rogue gets to compete with his psychic counterpart (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/psm/20040723b)) The Sorcerer is on the higher end of power, but still reasonably balanced. Please note that the biggest problem with the sorcerer isn't the class, but a number of spells available to it.

A spontaneous-casting Cleric, such as the Favored Soul, would fit next to the Sorcerer.

Flickerdart
2009-11-29, 01:50 PM
A spontaneous-casting Cleric, such as the Favored Soul, would fit next to the Sorcerer.
The FS is actually weaker than the Sorcerer: it gets the inferior divine spells, and is dual-ability dependant. A Psion is a fair match against a Sorcerer though, as it's still SAD and powers are on par with arcane spells.

Weimann
2009-11-29, 01:58 PM
Balance is a very subjective term. I find the balance argument get tossed around a bit too much in relation to games in general, for being so ill-defined.

I have no final opinion, but my own gut feeling about the term is that a set of balanced characters is one where everyone has something to contribute with. Thus, balance are dependant not only on the mechanics of a game, but also on it's players, partly in how much they optimize their characters, and partly in how they approach the game.

That's very flimsy and broad, but it's as defined as I can make it, I'm afraid.

Starbuck_II
2009-11-29, 01:59 PM
The FS is actually weaker than the Sorcerer: it gets the inferior divine spells, and is dual-ability dependant. A Psion is a fair match against a Sorcerer though, as it's still SAD and powers are on par with arcane spells.

FS is weaker because Clerics have more class features than Wizards. FS must spend known on cure spells unlike the clerics who spontaneously uses them.
Also the dual stuff is there agreed.

Zovc
2009-11-29, 02:48 PM
"Balanced" has to have a context. I think it's okay to use the word balanced without specifying its context if everyone is on the same train of thought. (Of course, there lies the problem.)

For example, saying the (3.5) monk isn't balanced is okay, because everyone understands that its a character class, and is easily overshadowed by many other classes (Barbarian, Cleric, etc.).

Another way to look at it is, " is imbalanced in it's own context." The Soulknife and Monk are good examples of this, both are weaker than pretty much every other class in their books, and don't even get as much support as the other classes do in their respective books.

The word balance just needs a context. Most people say that for D&D 3.5, the baseline for a class should be the Psychic Warrior, who is--in other words--"balanced."

The problem with balance in a roleplaying game (if you ask me) is that a "Rogue" isn't supposed to be as good of a "Fighter" as a Fighter. A Rogue should be more useful out of combat than a Fighter. If a Rogue class is designed not to be "functional" (useful, capable, etc.) in combat, the class is imbalanced if there is more combat than the designers intended. If a Fighter class is designed not to be "functional" out of combat, the class is imbalanced if there is less combat than the designers intended.

As a side tangent, I think magic would be insanely hard to balance (although I don't want anyone to argue whether or not it could have been done better, as I don't think that's this thread's topic), compare [I]Magic Missile to Sleep. Sleep seems like a more functional spell to me, I can put people to sleep for stealth purposes, for combat control purposes, or possibly find another miscellaneous use for it; Magic Missile just shoots someone (or something, if your DM lets), that's about it. How do you balance a utility spell with a 'less' useful spell? Well, apparently their best idea was to have the 'weaker' spell scale, to where (by the time you're level 10,) you can do 5d4+5 damage to one target with a standard action.

Oslecamo
2009-11-29, 02:59 PM
A Psion is a fair match against a Sorcerer though, as it's still SAD and powers are on par with arcane spells.

Only if the sorceror is going easy. Like shown on the other thread when someone claimed psions were the ultimate novas, sorcerors do it better, because arcane is stronger than powers when you push them both. Time stop, celerity, bidings and summons, metamagic reducers, you name it.

1of3
2009-11-29, 03:03 PM
It's Balance, if no player feels unimportant

When someone says "this or that game element is overpowered", that means that other players will likely feel unimportant.

When someone says that an element is underpowered, that means, the respective player will likely feel unimportant.

Sliver
2009-11-29, 03:14 PM
The FS is actually weaker than the Sorcerer: it gets the inferior divine spells, and is dual-ability dependant. A Psion is a fair match against a Sorcerer though, as it's still SAD and powers are on par with arcane spells.

I found myself, when playing FS in NWN2, always dumping wis and focusing on self buffs. But I am weak at optimizing so it probably doesn't matter..

Anyway, I think that tier 3 classes are the best baseline for "balance" comparing..

Chrono22
2009-11-29, 03:16 PM
Balance... it can mean a few different things.
Equal options.
Equal potential.
Equal ability.
Equal power.
Equal influence.

There are some problems with making a balanced RPG though- in a class-based system, the designer must intentionally design the classes so that they aren't equal in their respective focuses. This means, you must limit any given classes' potential from the beginning. This also means, the player has fewer options from the beginning and throughout the course of play.
You can't really control the ability of the players- some people are better at mechanics than others. Sometimes, it doesn't matter what system you play- some players will always overshadow others if their natural ability is too different. 4e tries to limit the difference, by restricting combat to a single mechanic- the power system. This stops the difference in ability between players being compounded by subsystems.
Influence, or, the characters' abilities to exact change on the game reality/environment, isn't something I've seen many RPGs handle directly. In 2e/3.5, it seems like the designers just thought "this would be a cool effect" and slapped it together, without really considering how it could be used in the game. In many games I've played in, a spell as simple as control weather has altered the outcome of major battles and the course of history.

So, I think a pefectly balanced system would start the players off with scratch (IE, a classless and levelness RPG). The niche or specialization of the player character would depend on his actions and choices during play. His choices would in turn limit his later options, as he becomes more entrenched in a particular character concept.
The system as a whole would have to restrict the influence of a player character based on the tier of power (thus, a chosen ability would be more or less powerful based on the power tier of the group). In this fashion, you could use the same mechanics to represent both an epic tale and a heroic story, without having to deal with rules or number glut.

lord_khaine
2009-11-29, 03:20 PM
Compared to a full melee class, it has a significantly lower chance of hitting, a significantly lower damage output, and are not very useful outside of Spring Attacking in such a way that they do 1 hit per round, and completely avoid counter-attacks.


Actualy, everything else being equal, then at least at the values of ac and level i looked at, then the monk had a slightly higher number of average hits.

Yukitsu
2009-11-29, 03:22 PM
Which level and compared to what? Half the time, the monk's going to have a lower strength than a fighter or a barbarian.

HamHam
2009-11-29, 03:27 PM
Tier 3. Done.

SimperingToad
2009-11-29, 03:37 PM
My definition of baseline has less to do with CR and more to do with meaningfully contribute about 75% of the time.

This. There is far too much emphasis on trying to make characters an 'army of one' where each has an ability that may be used in any given situation regardless of class. That's probably why gestalt characters have the amount of popularity they enjoy. There is a simple solution: just make one uber-class and be done with it already and everyone will be happy.

Of course, I'm being sarcastic.

Each PC has a job to do in the party. Some will contribute more than others in certain situations, and some may even be helpless at times. This is the reason PCs travel in groups. Balance is realized when the group overcomes their objective, each member having a part in getting to that final goal, no matter how small. When it is individuals doing something 100% of the time, then even superheroes pale by comparison. Even they have weaknesses.

TheThan
2009-11-29, 03:43 PM
To me, balance is when all the character class can contribute equally in any given encounter. Sure there will be ones where one class out shines another, but on average everyone should feel like they are helping the party and contributing.

Wizards, clerics, druids and to a lesser extend sorcerers all have the capacity to quickly and easily take over a party and start outshining the other classes all the time. So that the other classes are rendered obsolete and useless. That is what makes them overpowered.

Classes like the monk, the complete warrior samurai, and to a lesser extent the fighter are all classes that are barely capable of participating meaningfully in any given encounter. That is what make them underpowered.

Tshern
2009-11-29, 03:46 PM
It's Balance, if no player feels unimportant
This sums it up. It is also what I try to achieve with party communication before character creation and the gentlemen's agreement. An excellent comment.

Gnaeus
2009-11-29, 03:56 PM
Balance is a sliding scale.

On one end are games like the old Elric game, where one player rolls and gets a Melnibonean warrior sorcerer with bonuses to all of his stats and the ability to summon demons to live in his sword and armor, and the next player rolls and becomes a beggar and gets to roll on the crippling injury table.
Or Rifts, where one player is a first level human scout with 50 hit points, and another player is a first level dragon spellcaster with 10,000. (Note, Rifts has had a lot of fans for many years, which tells you exactly how important "Balance" is to having a good time.

On the other end are point based games. Notably Gurps, or 4th ed Shadowrun. Some options may be slightly better buys than others, and a good optimizer may be able to make his points stretch a little farther, but essentially all characters at a certain point level are close to equal in power, or at least able to contribute.

3.5 is somewhere in the middle. In most games, characters of roughly equal level are able to contribute against level appropriate enemies. The tier systems help, in that tier 1&2s are pretty well "balanced" against each other, as are tier 4s&5s. It is close enough to balanced that a Char-Op regular with enough DM leeway could make a tier 5 fighter that could overshadow a very badly played tier 1 caster. It isn't close enough to balanced that it is always clear why well built tier 1 and 2 characters at high level would consider a fighter to be an equal and contributing member of their team worthy of an equal split of treasure. It is relatively easy to build characters in 3.5 that cannot meaningfully contribute to an equal level party, even without trying to.

sonofzeal
2009-11-29, 04:29 PM
On the other end are point based games. Notably Gurps, or 4th ed Shadowrun. Some options may be slightly better buys than others, and a good optimizer may be able to make his points stretch a little farther, but essentially all characters at a certain point level are close to equal in power, or at least able to contribute.
Actually, that's just about the opposite of what I've heard about GURPS, and what I've seen through my little experience. There's a rough semblance of balance, but it's predicated entirely on players trying to not be unbalanced - which to me isn't balance at all.

Anonymouswizard
2009-11-29, 05:16 PM
Thank's to this thread I won't optimise my next few characters, so the other players can learn the techniques. I'll play a blaster wizard/sorcerer, a mystic theurge, or some other sub-optimal character. Then, after I get bored, the reaping shall begin.

Balance is where everyone's having fun. It is where the fighter is optimised enough, the wizard is a poorly built blaster (or the wizard only uses spells that help his allies), the cleric is a half healbot, and so on. Or it is where the party is a druid, a cleric, an illusionist or arcane trickster and a generalist wizard,transmuter/conjurer. But not 2 poorly built fighters (or a poorly built fighter and a blaster wizard played by bob, the guy who can never decide what to do), a bard who was built with the image of some famous singer, and a druid who turns into a dire ape at level 8 and utterly dwarfs the entire party (no prises for guessing where I got that idea from).

Foryn Gilnith
2009-11-29, 05:30 PM
It's Balance, if no player feels unimportant.This sums it up.

That does indeed sum it up (BTW sorry for shaving your quote Tshern). In this context, I would argue that "unbalanced" classes, in a general context, are classes likely to make people feel unimportant. Casters, with spells that can win entire encounters, save-or-lose spells that subvert the HP game, and similar tools; will likely make some people feel unimportant. Monks, with poor HP, poor attack bonuses, and general weakness, are likely to make their player feel unimportant.

Tshern
2009-11-29, 05:39 PM
Nevermind that quote shaving, not like you removed anything that changed the message.

horseboy
2009-11-29, 06:02 PM
Or Rifts, where one player is a first level human scout with 50 hit points, and another player is a first level dragon spellcaster with 10,000. (Note, Rifts has had a lot of fans for many years, which tells you exactly how important "Balance" is to having a good time.
Well, games like Rifts represents a different style of game design, that of Archetype fulfillment. If you look through the Rifts book and decide to play a Rogue Scholar then you know exactly what you're getting into.
We had a 3.xer come onto the Earthdawn forums complaining about how "unbalanced" ED was because our fighter class so outshines everyone else in combat. The designer's unilateral response was "duh, that's what he does, of course he's going to be the best." I believe 3.x attempted to be this but failed miserably. If this was accidental or intentional (ala Montey Cook) I don't know.

Roderick_BR
2009-11-29, 06:48 PM
That does indeed sum it up (BTW sorry for shaving your quote Tshern). In this context, I would argue that "unbalanced" classes, in a general context, are classes likely to make people feel unimportant. Casters, with spells that can win entire encounters, save-or-lose spells that subvert the HP game, and similar tools; will likely make some people feel unimportant. Monks, with poor HP, poor attack bonuses, and general weakness, are likely to make their player feel unimportant.
The problem is not players choosing these spells, the problems is that these options are available, in the core books.
It's like playing a game where one class has twice the hitpoints, weapons, skills, and powers than other class. Without any rule compensation. With no reason giving.

Balance is when a class is good at his area, without being overly powerful on others area. A wizard can defeat enemies, be a tool box, solve problems, and everything else, at the same time, without breaking a sweat. If you needed to optmize it to be able to do one or at most two of these things, it wouldn't be considered overpowered. Monks in the other hand, even with optmization, can't do what they are supposed to do, that is being a skilled skirmisher.

Partysan
2009-11-30, 06:14 AM
A class is balanced when it is

- best in its narrow field of specialization

Each class can do something, and while some are more specialized than others, each should be good at their specialty, the more so the narrower their field of specialization is. A Rogue specializes in stealth, trickery, stealing, lockpicking etc. He should be better at that than the Wizard going around casting knock and invisibility.

- of significant use in its secondary features

Most classes can do more than one thing. A Barbarian may e.g. have knowledge about surviving in the part of wilderness he lived in and should be of use if the party enters such an environment. He may not be as knowledgeable as the Druid, but still he will have practical experience. At least, he should be able to do more than just Rage.

- has weaknesses/nonproficiencies in fields of equal importance

Classes should also be limited to certain fields of competence. If a Wizard can open any door, win any combat and know every answer to every question, he will step on other's toes who specialize in one of these fields. (not the toes, the others)

- is able to meaningful contribute in and out of combat (this point only applying to combat-heavy games like D&D, in games where combat will seldom occur there is no problem in only specialized soldiers being able to fight well)

Even if a Fighter is mainly a combatant he should be able to do something else. If coming from an academy he will know a certain etiquette and could even be of noble rank. If he was a city watch, he may have some rogueish skills or contacts. A lot of this may be RPing, but there is mechanics in it.
A Rogue is a good example, as he can, while being a skillmonkey class, be a secondary combatant using sneak attacks (fitting the flavor of a rogue).

And most important, the class should be somehow unique, flavorful, and, above all, fun to play!

Emmerask
2009-11-30, 07:00 AM
Balance is when I win :smallbiggrin:

On a more serious note... balance in d&d is far more complicated to describe then for example an mmo because it really depends on the dm.

I had campaigns with dms where spellcasters where more or less useless in most fights and melees really did all the work (due to spell restrictions, lots of dedicated counterspellers so that in the end magic cancelled each other out etc)

So in the end balance is not objective but in general if a class can contribute something important (in and/or out of combat) to every adventure I call it roughly balanced.

averagejoe
2009-11-30, 07:10 AM
Well, games like Rifts represents a different style of game design, that of Archetype fulfillment. If you look through the Rifts book and decide to play a Rogue Scholar then you know exactly what you're getting into.

This, I think, is an even worse problem than imbalance itself. An imbalanced game can be fun if everyone knows what they're getting into, and if the encounter/storytelling style of that game fits well. Part of the problem with D&D is that there's so many traps. Like, people assume weapon specialization and greater weapon focus are awesome, because you have to get levels of fighter to take them, and fighters don't get any class features besides feats, so those special fighter only feats must make a fighter good!

I don't have to be the most competent guy at the table. I don't even mind playing a weak guy if I think the concept is cool enough. It is annoying, though, when I sit down at the table, my brand new modestly built guy all ready to go, and the player across from me informs me that power attack is mainly a good feat to take because he wants great cleave for his sword & board fighter, which will be totally awesome. When I have to wonder whether I should reign my guy in enough so that other people feel like they can contribute-when my guy was never built to be dominant, and I'm not sure if I can rain him in enough to make other people fell like they contribute-something is wrong.

Longcat
2009-11-30, 07:12 AM
Balance is when everyone is on the same tier.
If everyone plays T1 classes, and the encounters are designed for them, then it's balanced.
If everyone plays T3, and the encounters are designed for them, then it's balanced.
If everyone plays a CW Samurai, and the encounters are designed for them, then it's balanced.

Note, however, that Balance is not equal to fun.

lord_khaine
2009-11-30, 07:20 AM
Which level and compared to what? Half the time, the monk's going to have a lower strength than a fighter or a barbarian.

As i recall i looked at level 9 and 12, and it was while comparing the base difference between having flurry and having full BAB.

Duke of URL
2009-11-30, 08:05 AM
I think there have been a lot of good opinions on what "balance" is.

From a design/redesign standpoint, I find that the goal tends to be reducing inequities, rather than trying to eliminate them. Part of this is simple common sense -- high level casters can alter reality to fit their needs... some guy with a sword, no matter how awesome, just isn't going to be able to do that.

On the other hand, we can take measures to make sure "guy with a sword" can contribute to a high-level adventure, and to make sure the casters don't do his job better than he can.

The other issue with "balance" is that rules only go so far. Players are devious and find combinations that just aren't considered. (In some cases, twisting the wording clearly beyond their intent.) CharOp will find a way to "break" pretty much anything.

Play style also matters a lot -- the power imbalances between classes matter much, much less if the players involved make a coherent party with roles for each character, instead of trying to optimize each character and then try to make them into a party.

Zen Master
2009-11-30, 08:38 AM
so, what is the Baseline that people are comparing classes to when they talk about balance?

Here's my take.

If magic is used to do the job of another class - for instance to pick a lock - it needs to be no better than 75% of what the class created for the job could do.

Meaning that Knock would need to give a mage the skill at a lower skill modifier than what a rogue could get - and not, as it does, simply make rogues ability to open locks obsolete.

And this applies in all cases across the board. By this view, the best melee class should be a melee class ... like the barbarian.

Yukitsu
2009-11-30, 11:54 AM
As i recall i looked at level 9 and 12, and it was while comparing the base difference between having flurry and having full BAB.

But not between actual classes with real stat arrays, correct?

Kurald Galain
2009-11-30, 12:07 PM
"Balanced" refers to the notion that in competitive gaming, no one strategy (or race, character, or whatever) should be superior to every other, so that in those games where winning is important to gameplay, victory is determined by player skill, and not by whoever picked the best faction or whatnot.

Since roleplaying games aren't competitive, "balance" shouldn't apply to them in the first place, and in fact doesn't apply to any RPGs I know of besidse D&D. Even there, its importance is vastly overstated by people on internet forums, but some people assert that the game can only be "fun" if all characters are exactly as good as everybody else.

In this fashion, "balance" strives towards conformity, and is thus the opposite of character diversity.

averagejoe
2009-11-30, 12:10 PM
From a design/redesign standpoint, I find that the goal tends to be reducing inequities, rather than trying to eliminate them. Part of this is simple common sense -- high level casters can alter reality to fit their needs... some guy with a sword, no matter how awesome, just isn't going to be able to do that.

Sure he can. A guy with a sword can alter reality in such a way that causes an inconvenient person to suddenly have his head separated from his body.

Duke of URL
2009-11-30, 01:09 PM
Sure he can. A guy with a sword can alter reality in such a way that causes an inconvenient person to suddenly have his head separated from his body.

Well, OK, "guy with a sword" can alter reality for a a very, very localized view of reality. The point is that casters have a much less narrow playground of reality to alter.

Jayabalard
2009-11-30, 01:28 PM
If magic is used to do the job of another class - for instance to pick a lock - it needs to be no better than 75% of what the class created for the job could do.I know quite a few people would say that makes magic not very magical...

Kyeudo
2009-11-30, 01:30 PM
Since roleplaying games aren't competitive, "balance" shouldn't apply to them in the first place, and in fact doesn't apply to any RPGs I know of besidse D&D. Even there, its importance is vastly overstated by people on internet forums, but some people assert that the game can only be "fun" if all characters are exactly as good as everybody else.

In this fashion, "balance" strives towards conformity, and is thus the opposite of character diversity.

First, there is balance in other games. In Exalted, a character who dumps 200 XP into being a combat juggernaught can expect to dominate combat to an extent that the character who put his 200 XP into being a social juggernaught cannot match, but the reverse is also true. The combat character will not be able to dominate social combat to the same extent as the socialite. In other words, the two characters can both contribute, but do so in different situations. The two working together can do more than either alone.

Second, Balance does not mean conformity. Conformity is an easy way to ensure balance, but you can have balance without conformity. The Psychic Warrior and the Rogue are often thought of as balanced, but they most assuredly are not equal in all areas. A rogue has a much easier time becoming a master of stealth than the psychic warrior, while the psychic warrior can absorb much more punishment than the rogue ever will.

Doug Lampert
2009-11-30, 01:30 PM
In actual game situations, I don't see balance problems so much... the fighter can swing his weapon all day, and casters will run out of spells.

When? Even ignoring pearls of power and scrolls and wands and staffs and reduced cost metamagic just when will a mid-level or higher caster run out of spells?

A non-specialist wizard with a high enough Int to get a bonus spell of his highest level (almost always the case) gets a MINIMUM of 14 spells of his top four levels from character level 6 on. Four fights a day, 3 rounds a fight, he's used 12 spells out of that minimum.

To put it another way, if spells are only used in combat and take a standard action each then he'll not only NEVER run out of spells but he'll also NEVER be forced to cast a really low level spell either.

A level 20 wizard has more spells of level 6+ than a human fighter 20 has feats. That's not counting those "useless" low level spells like overland flight and mage armor and mirror image and dominate person. Just when will he run dry?

If a wizard EVER runs dry at level 5 or higher it's because he's either spent spells out of combat or managed to cast two spells per round. (At levels 1-4 you CAN run out of spells, but so what? Your crossbow is still a viable attack, not that much worse than the fighter's sword at that low a level.)

The only way a wizard runs dry is if he's planning to get substantial additional utility from his slots by using them out of combat or quickened, which makes the imballance worse, not better.

jmbrown
2009-11-30, 01:35 PM
"Balanced" refers to the notion that in competitive gaming, no one strategy (or race, character, or whatever) should be superior to every other, so that in those games where winning is important to gameplay, victory is determined by player skill, and not by whoever picked the best faction or whatnot.

Since roleplaying games aren't competitive, "balance" shouldn't apply to them in the first place, and in fact doesn't apply to any RPGs I know of besidse D&D. Even there, its importance is vastly overstated by people on internet forums, but some people assert that the game can only be "fun" if all characters are exactly as good as everybody else.

In this fashion, "balance" strives towards conformity, and is thus the opposite of character diversity.

Roleplaying games became competitive fairly early in their lifetime with associations like the RPGA. They used pregenerated characters but the idea was still to give players even footing. Whether or not this is a good thing is up to individual opinion but after the RPGA formed each version of D&D strove to become more and more "balanced" from making classes that weren't fighter/mage/thief/cleric in 2E optional to giving all classes in 4E equal progression with differences being items used and powers learned.

Tshern
2009-11-30, 01:36 PM
Beatsticks run out of hitpoints way before casters run out of spells and only the latter group has the chance of simply leaving and getting ready again.

PinkysBrain
2009-11-30, 02:40 PM
One argument I have seen floating around pretty often is that the character should win 50% of encounters against his CR. That means that a level 20 character should win 50% of fights against a Balor.
No ... against a representative set of CR20 encounters you should be able to overcome ~50% of them. Now the normal set might not be representative for the kind of games you run, but the point is that you can lose against the Balor 100% of the time and still prove balanced on the same game test.

Tshern
2009-11-30, 02:49 PM
No ... against a representative set of CR20 encounters you should be able to overcome ~50% of them. Now the normal set might not be representative for the kind of games you run, but the point is that you can lose against the Balor 100% of the time and still prove balanced on the same game test.
Good point, sorry, I explained it very poorly. Thanks for the correction.

Edit: In my defense, I have also seen it explained the way I first posted it. I really don't agree with either one, but still.

Snails
2009-11-30, 05:51 PM
A non-specialist wizard with a high enough Int to get a bonus spell of his highest level (almost always the case) gets a MINIMUM of 14 spells of his top four levels from character level 6 on. Four fights a day, 3 rounds a fight, he's used 12 spells out of that minimum.

To put it another way, if spells are only used in combat and take a standard action each then he'll not only NEVER run out of spells but he'll also NEVER be forced to cast a really low level spell either.

Never?

Such efficacy only occurs if (A) the Wizard knows exactly what he will be up against during the entire day AND (B) he has perfect control over how much fighting will come his way.

Up against a DM who keeps the players guessing, you cannot count on that 4th challenge being level equivalent instead of level equivalent +2 or +3. You cannot count on your last good spells not running up against specific immunities. It is not so simple IME.

Yukitsu
2009-11-30, 05:53 PM
Yeah, but those are the rare cases that a well prepared wizard should have a scroll or two prepared. Or have his lower level spells prepared for such situations.

Doug Lampert
2009-11-30, 06:07 PM
Never?

Such efficacy only occurs if (A) the Wizard knows exactly what he will be up against during the entire day AND (B) he has perfect control over how much fighting will come his way.

Up against a DM who keeps the players guessing, you cannot count on that 4th challenge being level equivalent instead of level equivalent +2 or +3. You cannot count on your last good spells not running up against specific immunities. It is not so simple IME.

He'll NEVER run out. And nothing you post above disagrees with that statement in ANY WAY! Out of "appropriate spells" != "out of spells". If you are changing the argument to appropriate to the encounter I'll be GLAD to argue that too. But the statement was that wizard spells need to be more powerful than fighter attacks because the wizard RUNS OUT OF SPELLS. Not runs out of spells ideal for the current situation, but runs out of spells period.

Out of spells well chosen for the current situation is the same as the fighter being rendered irrelevant because the target has DR against all of his attacks, it happens, but it has nothing to do with whether spells need to be more powerful because of the danger of running out.

In fact that's an argument for spells to be LESS powerful than a beatstick's sword because it is FAR FAR easier for the wizard to have a few alternate spells chosen than it is for the fighter to have a few alternate magic weapons + multiple feats + his ability build for when he suddenly faces a situation other than what he's built for.

In point of fact, still NOT COUNTING scrolls, staffs, wands, or pearls a Wizard, even a NEARLY DRY wizard on his FIFTH encounter of the day, still has far more choices than a fighter. So don't tell me you need more power because you might have prepared the wrong spells. The fighter can't effectively swap out at all if he suddenly needs a bludgeoning weapon and all his feats and his magic weapon are prepared for the wrong thing. The wizard MAY be forced to rely on a level six spell (the horror, the horror...).

Gnaeus
2009-11-30, 06:08 PM
And don't forget that the non specialist wizard has about the smallest spells per day of the true casters. A cleric or specialist would have 4 more spells of their top 4 levels. A Focused specialist would have 8 more. A druid would only have that many, but would spend some fights ripping things faces off with wildshape.

Snails
2009-11-30, 06:10 PM
I would define "balance" as achieving two things:

(1) Each character can make useful enough contributions most of the time, such that the players all feel consistently involved.

(2) Each player gets a similar amount of "spotlight time" where their character can really show off their capabilities in the most positive light.

If a PC class is mechanically inflexible, the game will tend to be less enjoyable for a player of that PC due to #1.

If a PC class is mechanically weak, then the PC will spend less time in the spotlight.

Grommen
2009-11-30, 10:42 PM
The Blaster in our group is normally the first one to go down in a fight, and quite often runs out of spells that actually help in a given situation. However their have been quite a few fights or encounters where he has the right spell at the right time and makes our lives significantly better off. Our cleric (whom I consider the most powerful and versitle core class) would dominate our game if the player playing him wanted too. He however does not.

Why?

Cause we make sure that everyone is having a good time playing and that their characters get a chance in the spotlight and contribute to the overall wellness of the game. The DM, we take turns, gives out stuff to keep each player balanced and feeling good.

When I DM I keep in mind the 4 fights and they should be looking for a nice quiet place to hide and rest. They get off easy on one fight, I make the next ones a wee bit harder. They get a tuff one, they might find a few extra healing potions, or the next fight might be a wee bit nicer.

Balance...

The core classes are not , never have been, never will be balanced with each other. That's not the goal of the game here. Their is no way in the world to balance a game that has thousands of books, and supplemental rules. It can't happen.

It's the job of the players and DM to find a balance where everyone is having a good time and no one feels shafted.

On another note:

I just finished NWN2 and I was really hacked off that the perfectly good Dwarven Fighter wanted to turn monk. Why ruin a freeken beautiful axe wielding bearded monster ? In the end because they gave the dwarf bad ass monk gear he pretty must was always the last one standing. So can a monk rock? I'm convinced.

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-12-01, 12:04 AM
On another note:

I just finished NWN2 and I was really hacked off that the perfectly good Dwarven Fighter wanted to turn monk. Why ruin a freeken beautiful axe wielding bearded monster ? In the end because they gave the dwarf bad ass monk gear he pretty must was always the last one standing. So can a monk rock? I'm convinced.

In NWN2. Which is not DnD 3.5e.

Doc Roc
2009-12-01, 12:27 AM
My experience has been that balance occurs when you have an object positioned such that its mass is evenly distributed with respect to the supporting object and the specific gravitational plane.

While this seems snide, it isn't. In games, it is the same....

A group's strength should be evenly distributed with respect to the members who support it and the specific thickheads who play melee. ;)

arguskos
2009-12-01, 01:21 AM
My experience has been that balance occurs when you have an object positioned such that its mass is evenly distributed with respect to the supporting object and the specific gravitational plane.

While this seems snide, it isn't. In games, it is the same....

A group's strength should be evenly distributed with respect to the members who support it and the specific thickheads who play melee. ;)
You sir, are the king of backhanded compliments.

Doc Roc
2009-12-01, 01:34 AM
Never?

Such efficacy only occurs if (A) the Wizard knows exactly what he will be up against during the entire day AND (B) he has perfect control over how much fighting will come his way.

Up against a DM who keeps the players guessing, you cannot count on that 4th challenge being level equivalent instead of level equivalent +2 or +3. You cannot count on your last good spells not running up against specific immunities. It is not so simple IME.

Actually, it is. Take a look at this (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=130429). I want to emphasize that I still have the vast majority of my spell slots unspent, as does my companion. I had _no_ idea what godna's abilities would be, and I built what I would consider to basically be a generalist wizard. My spell selection is deeply sub-optimal. My defenses are, by my standards, completely minimal.

It doesn't matter. I had spells, he didn't. Now, a sufficiently well-articulated fighter could reduce me to smoldering ash. How?
By abusing UMD, and pretending to be a caster.



You sir, are the king of backhanded compliments.

And certainly such a compliment makes you rank at least a face card of some flavor.

arguskos
2009-12-01, 02:07 AM
Actually, it is. Take a look at this (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=130429). I want to emphasize that I still have the vast majority of my spell slots unspent, as does my companion. I had _no_ idea what godna's abilities would be, and I built what I would consider to basically be a generalist wizard. My spell selection is deeply sub-optimal. My defenses are, by my standards, completely minimal.
Oh. My. Lord. :smalleek: That thread is stupid insane. And you're only level 13?! Remind me to never get on your bad side in a game.


And certainly such a compliment makes you rank at least a face card of some flavor.
I'll take the Jack. :smallamused:

Shazbot79
2009-12-01, 03:15 AM
From a design/redesign standpoint, I find that the goal tends to be reducing inequities, rather than trying to eliminate them. Part of this is simple common sense -- high level casters can alter reality to fit their needs... some guy with a sword, no matter how awesome, just isn't going to be able to do that.

Yeah but why is it considered a given that casters can alter reality to the level where the big sword swinging guy simply cannot keep up? I mean, where does that base assumption come from?

There's no basis for comparison in reality....so it doesn't come from there. Besides, roleplaying games aren't meant to simulate reality, they are intended to simulate fiction... and spellcasters in a lot of pulp fantasy fiction, the basis for D&D, has warriors overcoming spellcasters quite often.

I can see people making a case for this in games like Ars Magica and Mage where the actual game is ABOUT altering reality with magic, but D&D is about a team of specialists using their individual strengths to overcome fantastic challenges. This logic reeks of the notion that Wizards get to be better than everyone else, simply because they are Wizards. When one specialist's niche is neatly subsumed by another classes abilities, that means that the game is unbalanced.



On the other hand, we can take measures to make sure "guy with a sword" can contribute to a high-level adventure, and to make sure the casters don't do his job better than he can.

The other issue with "balance" is that rules only go so far. Players are devious and find combinations that just aren't considered. (In some cases, twisting the wording clearly beyond their intent.) CharOp will find a way to "break" pretty much anything.

Play style also matters a lot -- the power imbalances between classes matter much, much less if the players involved make a coherent party with roles for each character, instead of trying to optimize each character and then try to make them into a party.

The problem with this logic is that it ostensibly means that a player is being unfair to the others by choosing the best options for his/her character, which is something that most people do instinctually. So in order to create a balanced party, people who are playing higher tiered classes need to consciously take suboptimal options for their characters. I'm not even speaking from an optimization standpoint either...by this logic, a Cleric shouldn't take self-buffing or summon spells because they tread on the toes of the fighter, nor should a Wizard take knock, invisibility or save or die spells because they tread on the tows of the Rogue. Furthermore, why should this burden be placed on the player's shoulders?

And as a completely separate gripe, why do we balance out of combat utility with combat efficacy?

Why should a Fighter suck at everything besides climbing and crafting, simply because they get more hit points?

Why should a Bard suffer in combat because they get a lot of skill points?

Why not make ALL classes useful in and out of combat?

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-12-01, 03:20 AM
I'll take the Jack. :smallamused:

You knave!

arguskos
2009-12-01, 03:26 AM
You knave!
Actually, I like to think of myself as this guy (http://oglaf.com/chasm.html). :smallamused:

Obligatory "the rest of that site is decidedly NSFW" warning, blahblahblah

Gnaeus
2009-12-01, 09:03 AM
The Blaster in our group is normally the first one to go down in a fight, and quite often runs out of spells that actually help in a given situation.

1. Without knowing what level range you play at, that information is meaningless
2. The fact that you describe him as a "Blaster" probably means that his spell selection is poor, even if he does occasionally pick a good one. "Blaster" ranks just above "Healbot" on the list of things a good class can do, but probably shouldn't.



On another note:

I just finished NWN2 and I was really hacked off that the perfectly good Dwarven Fighter wanted to turn monk. Why ruin a freeken beautiful axe wielding bearded monster ? In the end because they gave the dwarf bad ass monk gear he pretty must was always the last one standing. So can a monk rock? I'm convinced.

Hmmmm....

1. I'm pretty sure that NWN doesn't have many of the fights that leave melee absolutely useless. Flying ranged attackers, ranged attackers w/ good cover, that kind of thing. If you flip through your MM (any MM) and ask yourself would a monk of equal level to this CR be able to contribute in combat against X. The answer will often be "no". If you ask the same question of a Wizard or Cleric, the answer is always "yes".

2. A character designed to "be the last one standing" is a pitiful waste of space. Much better is a character designed to kill the enemy quickly so that the party wins. Paladin, Knight and Monk are the 3 biggest "be the last one standing" characters, and they all live on Tier 5 in the crack infested slums of character creation.

What makes this even worse is that the Tier 1s (Cleric, Druid, Wizard), who are best at ending fights with single spells, are ultimately also best at being "the last one standing" because Plane Shift, Contingent Teleport, or turning into an earth elemental and gliding through the floor will let you escape from things the monk hasn't got a prayer of outrunning.

Lycar
2009-12-01, 12:32 PM
2. The fact that you describe him as a "Blaster" probably means that his spell selection is poor, even if he does occasionally pick a good one. "Blaster" ranks just above "Healbot" on the list of things a good class can do, but probably shouldn't.

Hmm... if his spell selection means that he and his mates have fun playing the game, as opposed to, you know, the wizard p0wnzoring everything and relegating all other players to 'Wizards ambulatory appendices' status, I would rate his spell selection as 'excellent'.

The problem isn't so much that the game is unbalanced but that you might end up playing with social retards who still think it's funny to ruin other people's fun.

Just because you can make an über-wizard doesn't mean you should.

Yes, if you want to play a high-value, quality game with people you regard as your friends, rather then 'people you hang around with to show up, so you can feel better about yourself', then you ought to 'gimp' yourself as a wizard.

Honestly, Char-Ops mostly tells us what 'not' to do.

So what if your non-optimized party finds fights challenging that a non-optimized party would breeze through? You still miss the point: The DM is supposed to provide you with encounters you can defeat, but should have to work for to do so.

All you achieve if you 'optimize' your character is creating a headache for your DM because he has an even harder time to figure out what will challenge but not wipe the party.

Also, important tip for all DMs: Challenge ratings are just a tool, something to help you guide through the hundreds of possible monsters in all the books. It is by no means a hard-coded value. This also means: If the party handily defeats a challenge that the CR-syste pegged as 'challenging' then it obviously wasn't and therefore you should by no means award full XP !

Conversly, if a fight was supposed to be easy but ended up with the PCs making it by the skin of their teeth, they should be rewarded with more XP. Because they learn more from something that really forced them to psh their limits then something that did not.

Lycar

Grommen
2009-12-01, 12:34 PM
1. Without knowing what level range you play at, that information is meaningless
2. The fact that you describe him as a "Blaster" probably means that his spell selection is poor, even if he does occasionally pick a good one. "Blaster" ranks just above "Healbot" on the list of things a good class can do, but probably shouldn't.





Ya missed my point. He is that way cause we made him that way. Still quite useful, just not god like. Were well aware of the dirty wizard tricks, we just don't think that wizards need them. Thuss we strike a balance in the party. That is my point. Were not power gamers, and not anything goes around our table. It's foolish to play RPG's like a war game. The other players are not adversaries to overcome. They are people to work with to create and maintain a story worthy of repeating. The fights are just as hard, the BBEG's and bosses are just as mean. And the party does not suck in a fight just because we don't play our characters to their fullest extent of power.

If you like, the blaster is around 10th to 12th level, and yes he has fly, dimension door, Stone Skin, and several other defenses. Favors fire spells, and yes the adventure we did where everything was fireproof sucked. So what. One character should not rule 100% of the time. So we don't let them.

As far as blasters being sub par (optomal). When your DM also designs the npc's attacking you with the same balance in mind. Blasting becomes far more fun and playable.

We also have a Healbot in our party. So I guess by your definition we must be the worst group of players in the history of Role Playing :smallbiggrin:

Problem is. We have fun, and things are balanced. If you and your group like playing at the hi end of the game with super characters go for it. As long as everyone is on the same page great. I've no problems with it. My point is to strike a balance with everyone at the table. Make sure everyone is on par with everyone else, and that the bad guys are not too weak or strong.

Again the game is not, never has been, never will be in and of it's self balanced. This is why you have a DM/Judge/GM/Reff/God running the game. They bring balance.

Yukitsu
2009-12-01, 12:47 PM
2. A character designed to "be the last one standing" is a pitiful waste of space. Much better is a character designed to kill the enemy quickly so that the party wins. Paladin, Knight and Monk are the 3 biggest "be the last one standing" characters, and they all live on Tier 5 in the crack infested slums of character creation.


Pallys aren't quite as bad as advertized. They deal more at level 6 than the other martial types. If they have the feats power attack, law devotion and divine smite, they can keep up with the others up to that level. Bad later, but at those earlier levels, they aren't really tanks without offense any more than a barb is.

Gnaeus
2009-12-01, 01:31 PM
The Blaster in our group is normally the first one to go down in a fight, and quite often runs out of spells that actually help in a given situation.


Ya missed my point. He is that way cause we made him that way. Still quite useful, just not god like. Were well aware of the dirty wizard tricks, we just don't think that wizards need them.

Your first post sounds like "Wizards aren't overpowered. The one in our game isn't any stronger than the other classes". The second post makes it clear that he is running out of spells BECAUSE HE IS DELIBERATELY GIMPING HIMSELF or the DM is doing it for him.



Favors fire spells, and yes the adventure we did where everything was fireproof sucked. So what. One character should not rule 100% of the time. So we don't let them.

As far as blasters being sub par (optomal). When your DM also designs the npc's attacking you with the same balance in mind. Blasting becomes far more fun and playable.

We also have a Healbot in our party. So I guess by your definition we must be the worst group of players in the history of Role Playing :smallbiggrin:

I like how you list blasting being fun and playable right after mentioning the adventure where he sucked because everything was fireproof.

If your players have fun with their characters, that is great. It doesn't have anything to do with class balance, other than the simple statement that "If everyone plays their character in such a way that they aren't stronger than the weakest character in the party, everyone is balanced." That is true. That is not helpful to many groups, or even many players.

Personally, my problem with this kind of play is that it requires your party's smartest characters (in terms of their Intelligence and wisdom) act like its stupidest. Barring mental illness, what rational reason would the character have for this kind of behavior? Its kind of like if the military said "We can get all we need by destroying the target from the air, but we will send in the marines instead. Sure some of them may die, but at least they will feel that they contributed."

Blasting isn't just bad because it isn't tactically strong, it is bad for balance because you are ignoring the things that only a caster can do well (Buffing, Debuffing, Crowd Control, some kinds of utility) and replacing it with something that the Barbarian can do (Damage). If you do more damage you are stealing his role. If you do less, then suddenly it is unbalanced in favor of the melee. A wizard that is actually being role-played as having a 20+ intelligence and a wisdom over 8 should have the ability to do all these things on a given day.


Hmm... if his spell selection means that he and his mates have fun playing the game, as opposed to, you know, the wizard p0wnzoring everything and relegating all other players to 'Wizards ambulatory appendices' status, I would rate his spell selection as 'excellent'.

All you achieve if you 'optimize' your character is creating a headache for your DM because he has an even harder time to figure out what will challenge but not wipe the party.


A Cleric or Wizard who wants to keep other players relevant doesn't need to be a healbot, and shouldn't be a blaster. A Crowd Controller/Buffer wins fights just as effectively as the guy flinging Save-Or-Dies, and he gives everyone a chance to shine while they do it. You can be a well played caster, and still be a team player. Item crafting is an excellent way to do this. You transfer power (xp) from the caster to add power (magic items) to the non caster, and repeat until balance is achieved.

Challenging the party is the DMs job. Playing the characters in a reasonable way is the PCs job. The solution for the DMs inability to do his job is not to ask the players not to do theirs.

Gnaeus
2009-12-01, 01:59 PM
Pallys aren't quite as bad as advertized. They deal more at level 6 than the other martial types. If they have the feats power attack, law devotion and divine smite, they can keep up with the others up to that level. Bad later, but at those earlier levels, they aren't really tanks without offense any more than a barb is.

Most of the balance problems in the game don't really appear until higher levels. At low level, the monk can still contribute meaningfully in most encounters. There are still lots of dumb melee brutes who will mindlessly rush the Knight and allow him to bottleneck them away from the casters. At very low levels, high AC and HP are the best defense in the game. You can argue that well built melee characters are more effective than casters until level 4 or so. (I don't really agree, but you don't sound bad when you say it). Personally, I would agree with you that Pallys beat Monks or Knights, but in mid-high level play none of them are in a good place.

Pallys (and Monks, and Fighters) are also very front loaded. They get their single best class abilities by level 2. That is why you see them in dips (like Monk1 DruidX, or Pally2 SorcX).

Doc Roc
2009-12-01, 02:00 PM
I'm not interested in lambasting you. I know exactly where you are coming from.
I think it would be better to just say that you represent a statistical outlier, and that one player's experience does not a game system make. I have definitely run campaigns for groups just like that. That doesn't mean that this is the upper-bound on wizardly performance, or that this means that wizards are balanced.

It doesn't take monstrous kung-fu to break wizard. It does take some thought. So here you have a class that is tremendously, horrifyingly, almost disgustingly variable in power. Your party's wizard might stretch out an army of unadulterated rage ripped from the bowels of the nine hells, or he might plink away happily with magic missile prepared in half his spell slots.

You say: "I have a wizard in the party!"
I have no idea what that means. Do you have a juggernaut? A masterful summoner? A gish? A blaster? A crowd-controller? The fact that it can fill so many roles, that it can vary so wildly in power....That, in a nutshell, is what it means to be "broken."


Also, don't call us "You char-ops." What the hell, dude?

Jayabalard
2009-12-01, 02:16 PM
Your first post sounds like "Wizards aren't overpowered.Only because you're quoting that statement out of context.


It doesn't have anything to do with class balance, other than the simple statement that "If everyone plays their character in such a way that they aren't stronger than the weakest character in the party, everyone is balanced." That is true. That is not helpful to many groups, or even many players.You're missing the point: he's making a statement that class balance, in and of itself, is not important at all by giving an example of why he feels that it's not important.


Also, don't call us "You char-ops." What the hell, dude?I really have no idea who you're responding to on this... I don't see anyone using the quoted phrase.

Doc Roc
2009-12-01, 02:24 PM
Honestly, Char-Ops mostly tells us what 'not' to do.


It's marginally better than munchkin, but it still sucks to be just cordoned out of the gaming public.

And as to what you suppose his point.... I'm going to have to gently disagree with that assessment because these things do come up, and they come up lots. So it's fine and dandy that his group is beautiful and self-regulating. That's not been my experience, or the experience of innumerable other people on these boards. That, however, is it for me. I'm done arguing on the internet for now. Maybe next year. :)

Gnaeus
2009-12-01, 02:35 PM
Only because you're quoting that statement out of context.

Not really...




You're missing the point: he's making a statement that class balance, in and of itself, is not important at all by giving an example of why he feels that it's not important.

If that is his point, you have certainly made it much more clearly than he has in 2 long posts.

I read his point as being closer to: "Balance is not important when the DM and party are all aware of the issue and play down the stronger options to restore balance to an imbalanced system". He certainly never said that class balance isn't important at all. If that was his position, his group has gone to great lengths to reach something unimportant.

My response is that such play is counter to what one would expect from the mindset of the typical characters. Also that optimization and tactical play does not preclude mindfulness of balance in 3.5. To this I would add that his solution requires a good knowledge of what is and isn't balanced, coupled with a certain attitude on the part of all the members of his group, and that while those may be optimal, neither is remotely universal in the hobby.

Jayabalard
2009-12-01, 02:36 PM
It's marginally better than munchkin, but it still sucks to be just cordoned out of the gaming public.Firstly: he didn't say "You char-ops" so you really shouldn't quote it like that.

Secondly: from his context, I don't really see any reason to necessarily assume that he's talking about people as opposed to forums where such ideas are the focus of discussion. I'm not saying this is certainly the case, just that his usage is a bit ambiguous, and I that I generally see "Char-op" used when talking about forums and the word "Optimizer" or "Powergamer" applied to people.

Thirdly: optimizers are the ones doing the cordoning to themselves, by playing with a specific set of behaviors that some people find more than a little bit absurd.


And his point doesn't hold any water, because these things do come up, and they come up lots.There's nothing that says that the problem is due to lack of class balance as opposed to lack of player maturity, or player ignorance of the problem, etc.


Not really...Yes, really. You're leaving out all the bit after that that talks about why it's not a problem (the context of that statement), and then presenting his statement as if he's saying something that he's not. Hence: you're quoting it out of context to make it appear that he's saying something that he's not.


If that is his point, you have certainly made it much more clearly than he has in 2 long posts. It seems blatantly clear to me.


I read his point as being closer to: "Balance is not important when the DM and party are all aware of the issue and play down the stronger options to restore balance to an imbalanced system". He certainly never said that class balance isn't important at all. If that was his position, his group has gone to great lengths to reach something unimportant. The classes aren't balanced, they're still quite unbalanced for his group, and his group has done nothing to fix that as far as he's said. The CHARACTERS on the other hand, are fairly well balanced.

Gnaeus
2009-12-01, 02:54 PM
Thirdly: optimizers are the ones doing the cordoning to themselves, by playing with a specific set of behaviors that some people find more than a little bit absurd.

There's nothing that says that the problem is due to lack of class balance as opposed to lack of player maturity.

In my experience, you mostly play with the players you have. It is the rare group that has the option of selecting players based on maturity.

You suggest that optimization is hostile to RP or Class balance, and that optimizers are the problem. That may be true in some cases, but parties filled with optimizers do not have these issues. Class balance is a problem if players don't like dumbing down their characters when they realize that there are huge power disparities in a party.

There are lots of ways around this problem. One is ending games at low levels, before the imbalance really gets too large. Another is having optimizers optimize for roles that do not involve the spotlight, like battlefield control and support. A third is allowing voluntary rebuilds at certain points of the game, during which the optimizers assist their less rules-intensive brethren in achieving their character concepts in a more effective way (which is why the knee-jerk response of many optimizers to the word Monk is to shout "Unarmed Swordsage". You don't have to play your wizard like a Gimp once the Melees have found ToB.). A fourth is for DMs to pick fights that are tougher for the optimizers (although this can be hard sometimes) or that play to the strengths of the weaker players. A fifth is Grommen's solution, which could be described as having everyone try to play nicely with others.

Different solutions will work for different groups. None of them suggest that there isn't a problem.

Gnaeus
2009-12-01, 03:07 PM
Yes, really. You're leaving out all the bit after that that talks about why it's not a problem (the context of that statement), and then presenting his statement as if he's saying something that he's not. Hence: you're quoting it out of context to make it appear that he's saying something that he's not..

And you are ignoring the previous posts that discuss how wizards never run out of spells, to which his first statement appears to be responding. He never describes the voluntary crippling of his wizard in the first post.



The classes aren't balanced, they're still quite unbalanced for his group, and his group has done nothing to fix that as far as he's said. The CHARACTERS on the other hand, are fairly well balanced.

His wizard has hobbled himself to the point where there are entire adventures where he can't contribute. That sounds like a crummy way of getting balance to me. If it works for his group, great. Its all about having fun. I think his solution strains roleplaying, and I am certain that it wouldn't work for many, probably most groups.

Snails
2009-12-01, 03:21 PM
He'll NEVER run out. And nothing you post above disagrees with that statement in ANY WAY! Out of "appropriate spells" != "out of spells".

I mis-read the thrust of your argument, Doug. I concede the point.

Snails
2009-12-01, 04:03 PM
The core classes are not , never have been, never will be balanced with each other. That's not the goal of the game here. Their is no way in the world to balance a game that has thousands of books, and supplemental rules. It can't happen.

It's the job of the players and DM to find a balance where everyone is having a good time and no one feels shafted.

Read very narrowly, I am not sure anyone would disagree. In fact, I posit that any reasonable definition of a "good player" in a RPG context absolutely must include the willingness to amend behavior in order to help others have fun, to some degree.

But there is such a thing as egregious design flaws that make accomplishing a good time for everyone unnecessarily difficult. It is always theoretically possible for "better players" or a "better GM" to salvage a game from any and all flaws. An appeal that is so fuzzy and potentially all encompassing is too convenient to be the strongest counterargument.

IME there is such a thing as "land mines" -- design errors lurking under the surface that can utterly sabotage an adventure or a player's fun until a reasonable workaround can be figured out, usually the hard way.

IME there is such a thing as "nuclear weapons" -- design errors, perhaps coupled with over clever tactics, that can utterly sabotage an entire campaign, until a reasonable workaround can be figured out.

Churning out Feats and PrCs and Classes and Spells is really really easy for any amateur with half a brain. What is difficult is not leaving many many land mines and many many nuclear weapons lying around. The reason is I happily fork over my hard-earned money for game books is in the expectation that the professionals will leave fewer nasty surprises for me to stumble upon.

PinkysBrain
2009-12-01, 04:26 PM
The reason is I happily fork over my hard-earned money for game books is in the expectation that the professionals will leave fewer nasty surprises for me to stumble upon.
That seems awfully optimistic to me ... until the later stages of 3e Wizards very apparently didn't have a clue. By the end they started getting it, or maybe it was because the second stringers still working on 3e were actually much better at it (4e settled for balance by blandness, I don't feel that counts).

Snails
2009-12-01, 05:07 PM
That seems awfully optimistic to me ... until the later stages of 3e Wizards very apparently didn't have a clue. By the end they started getting it, or maybe it was because the second stringers still working on 3e were actually much better at it (4e settled for balance by blandness, I don't feel that counts).

Let's keep in mind that the RPG industry standard for splatbooks, from the point of view of mechanical balance, is to be absolutely awful (IMNSHO).

The 3.0 core books were some of the better play-tested material in the history of the RPG industry (which is not to suggest it did not have its flaws). The 3.0 splatbooks were a big step down to the industry standard, and I quickly stopped buying.

The 3.5 core books were a modest step up from 3.0. The first few Complete books were largely rehashes of 3.0 splatbooks, and were fairly decent. IMO all the Complete series were pretty good. But I think you are correct that 3rd party material was raising the bar.

PinkysBrain
2009-12-01, 05:42 PM
I dunno, 3.5 core spells and magic items are just too filled to the brim with first glance ridiculousness for me to take your assertion of quality serious. It might be good compared to what went before, but I don't think it far above what I see on homebrew boards.

Lets compare the PHB/DMG to a really decent book like say ToB, sure ToB has it's exploits ... but they aren't as glaringly obvious as say Polymorph or Telekinesis or Gate/Candle of Invocation or Spellstoring (+quickdraw) or Life Drinker (+deathward). Or as easy to find in playtesting as Evard's Black Tentacles.

Zen Master
2009-12-01, 06:04 PM
I know quite a few people would say that makes magic not very magical...

Yea - the kind of people who feel magic needs to be a fail-proof solution to everything? I know those people too.

But this was about balance, right? So if magic is to be part of something that's balanced, would you say it can work in a way that lets it replace all other things?

I'd say no.

Snails
2009-12-01, 06:57 PM
I dunno, 3.5 core spells and magic items are just too filled to the brim with first glance ridiculousness for me to take your assertion of quality serious. It might be good compared to what went before, but I don't think it far above what I see on homebrew boards.

I am not familiar with ToB.

To a significant degree, I believe the 3.x designers felt it necessary to attempt material that would have been wiser to avoid. So nearly all bovines were invited in to 3.0, even the not quite sacred ones. Polymorphing is problematic in all incarnations in every game ever, and is likely to always be so -- the werewolf and the vampire alike are exploiting a kind of open "cheating", and that is precisely why it is cool.

But you reference to what came before is largely correct.

IMO the fact we are even attempting to have this conversation is a direct result of the astounding relative success of D&D 3.0 in achieving balance. In the pre-3.0 universe of the RPG fan world, conversations about mechanical exploits in RPGs were considered somewhat silly because it was simply assumed many big loopholes were the norm for all RPGs, unless your GM was a statistical genius who controlled what options went into you game with an adamantine fist.

If you want to talk about what is normal in the RPG industry, let's crack open, say, 1st edition Shadowrun, and then discuss the supplements. Or 2nd edition Shadowrun. Or Hero bouceback rules. Or Riddle of Steel and how they could have missed the Dwarfskin or Dragontap exploits. Or dive into most of the dice pool mechanics, a topic that way back on rpg.net prompted the memorable wiseacre comment "there ought to be a law against RPG game designers using anything but BRP percentile mechanics until they have passed an exam on basic statistics".

Doc Roc
2009-12-01, 07:19 PM
Holy crap, ain't that the truth. I love savage worlds, but there are some... numerical issues with its test mechanic. I'm inclined to suggest that dicepool mechanics are bad but cascade-and-add mechanics are generally worse from a balance standpoint, even if I love them dearly.

averagejoe
2009-12-01, 07:45 PM
I dunno, 3.5 core spells and magic items are just too filled to the brim with first glance ridiculousness for me to take your assertion of quality serious. It might be good compared to what went before, but I don't think it far above what I see on homebrew boards.

Lets compare the PHB/DMG to a really decent book like say ToB, sure ToB has it's exploits ... but they aren't as glaringly obvious as say Polymorph or Telekinesis or Gate/Candle of Invocation or Spellstoring (+quickdraw) or Life Drinker (+deathward). Or as easy to find in playtesting as Evard's Black Tentacles.

As significant, I think, is that the ToB (say) has many less not-necessarily-obvious traps than are found in core. Many relatively new characters think things like fireball or lighting bolt are strong options, if for no other reason than because they're iconic, or because they don't bother to look closely at the spells, only reading their blurb descriptions. At first glance great cleave looks awesome to some people, and whirlwind attack seems well worth the prerequisites. Pitfalls exist in the ToB, just like exploits do, but they're not as easy to fall into.