Class balance = Boring (A Rant) [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

Stormageddon

2012-01-26, 01:44 PM

nyarlathotep

2012-01-26, 02:00 PM

Curious

2012-01-26, 02:00 PM

Classes being balanced against one another does not mean they all play similarly. For example; Factotum, Warblade, Binder, Beguiler, Dragonfire Adept. None of these classes play similarly at all, but they are all quite balanced against one another.

Also, cooperative gaming only works when every player is contributing an equal amount to the party. When one player is instead completely ancillary, you have a problem.

gkathellar

2012-01-26, 02:01 PM

I think making the classes equal kind of destroys the point of having different classes in the first place (as 4th edition did) from a genera savvy perspective.

I'm not sure I fully understand your point about a "genre savvy perspective," but if the tremendous efforts of our Homebrew boards show us anything, it's that we can at the very least narrow the power gap without creating homogeneity among classes.

I get that at later levels the non-full casters get out classed by their caster friends, but who cares! Most campaigns I've been in don't get past level 10 if that (unless you are starting at a higher level), and I've never seen a person play a "god" wizard, cleric-zilla, or whatever.

People who like to play those other classes care, because they don't want to feel like they're useless. And remember, individual personal experience does not amount to an established truth.

The name of the game is role-playing, not roll-playing.

Ah, this again. I don't understand this attitude. Why does an interest in balanced mechanics that allow for a wider variety of character archetypes to fairly participate in play constitute a disinterest in roleplaying?

The DM can adjust to what ever party is thrown together.

Yes, he can, but the game tells him that he shouldn't have to — so either it needs to be up-front about its balance problems, or it needs to not have them.

Also this game is designed to cooperative game, not competitive. Cooperative between you and the other players, and cooperative between the players and the DM.

It is indeed a cooperative game. And when the game's mechanics makes participation less effective or less interesting for some players based on what type of character they want to play, it fails to encourage the cooperation inherent to its goals. And when game mechanics are at odds with game goals, you have a Problem.

Greenish

2012-01-26, 02:04 PM

I'm not sure I fully understand your point about a "genre savvy perspective,"."Genera savvy" means you're up with your taxonomy. :smallwink:

Telonius

2012-01-26, 02:21 PM

Also this game is designed to cooperative game, not competitive. Cooperative between you and the other players, and cooperative between the players and the DM. A competition usually involves winning and a reward for winning. How do win D&D? What's the reward? You see a player lagging behind the rest of the party, why not help him/her out throw them a buff. Check in with the person OoC to make sure they are having fun, and if not what you can do to help that person.

If a player is really lagging behind the rest of the team, in my experience it's usually because the character is built a lot weaker than the rest of the team. So he needs a buff ... to balance out the power.

I do get what you're saying. Yes, it's possible to design an encounter that plays to each class's strengths and weaknesses. This is actually a lot easier to do when the classes are at a similar level of power, and easier still when they're all the same class. A party full of Clerics? Easy to plan for. Bards? Also easy. A bunch of lower-tiers like Rogue, Paladin, Fighter ... okay, even Monk? Any DM worth the title can throw together something that would be challenging and fun for them. The big problems come when the strongest class is significantly more powerful than the weakest. If you're playing with a Wizard, Cleric, Druid, and Truenamer (to take an extreme example), the effort required to design that would be pretty close to superhuman. The game has to be fun for the DM, too.

Yes, it's possible (and overwhelmingly common, in my experience) for the players to have a "gentleman's agreement" not to try to break the game. "God wizards" (and Clerics, Druids, Artificers, Archivists, etc.) are more of a theoretical exercise and a learning experience for DMs, so they know about problematic spells and combinations before somebody uses one accidentally. There are a lot of easy houserules for those issues; it's a very fixable system. But the fact that it's "fixable" means that it's broken. If a gentleman's agreement is necessary, if the players and DM have to actively look out for broken stuff, there's something wrong with the game design.

Greenish

2012-01-26, 02:33 PM

Yes, it's possible (and overwhelmingly common, in my experience) for the players to have a "gentleman's agreement" not to try to break the game. "God wizards" (and Clerics, Druids, Artificers, Archivists, etc.) are more of a theoretical exercise and a learning experience for DMs, so they know about problematic spells and combinations before somebody uses one accidentally."God wizard" is a strategy focusing on being a good team player and letting other characters shine, intended specifically for actual play.

It's called "god" because it uses other people to fight for it and manipulates the odds to their favour. Also so that the wizard'll feel better about playing a support character.

Let's keep our concepts straight, eh?

navar100

2012-01-26, 02:52 PM

Binks

2012-01-26, 03:00 PM

I see a lot of posts on this forum about Nerfing casters or making melee characters up to par with full casters. I think making the classes equal kind of destroys the point of having different classes in the first place (as 4th edition did) from a genera savvy perspective.
Balanced != Exactly the same

I enjoy the idea of the super powerful wizard; who struggles through the first hand full of levels to obtain true power. I also like the idea of the warrior working with nothing but the strength in his arm, his trusty weapon, and some armor against all kinds of beasts, demons, and magical creatures. I like the craft rogue using his wits to overcome obstacles.
Do you enjoy the idea of being the warrior working with nothing but the strength in his arm when the wizard is summoning up creatures from beyond who have more strength in their dozen arms than you? Do you want to be the rogue who starts using his wits to overcome and obstacle before being stopped by the wizard who has the perfect spell to bypass it completely without your help?

I get that at later levels the non-full casters get out classed by their caster friends, but who cares! Most campaigns I've been in don't get past level 10 if that (unless you are starting at a higher level), and I've never seen a person play a "god" wizard, cleric-zilla, or whatever.
Perhaps the people who care are the ones whose campaigns do regurally get or start above that point? :smallwink:

The name of the game is role-playing, not roll-playing. If a person is coming up with a character concept, and throws in "oh by the way he/she's a gish" "Why?" "because it's more powerful, dude!" I think that person has lost perspective on what the game is about.
Stormwind Fallacy

As for "It's a fun to repeatedly do the same action over and over again in combat as a non-caster." Not having fun at the table is a problem. After all this is a game. Fun should be involved in a pretty big way. I would than summit you are playing the wrong class for you. I personally like standing toe to toe trading blows with the big bad. I let my imagination do the work there as just dealing a numeric HP damage is silly at best.
But would you rather let your imagination run wild and have the end result be just some hp damage, or let your imagination run wild and have the end result be some hp damage, the enemy lying flat on his back, and your character being ready to hit him when he gets up (to use a 4E example from my last game). The former is fun, but often diverges from the actual mechanics of what is happening ('And then I hit him in the shin, knocking him down! 10 damage!', 'Alright, on his turn he runs 100m over here...')

I think people get stuck on the idea that to be in a party has to fill all the roles: skill monkey, tank, striker, arcane, healer. In the 3/3.5/pathfinder I've never found this to be true in fact the more interest parties I've been in lacked some of these roles, and have had to use creative problem solving to over come challenges that could be easily beaten had that role been filled. Party of wizards, why not. Team cleric, cool. Traveling band of musical bards, awesome! Monk, fighter, paladin, rogue, sweet. This is not a video game run by a program. The DM can adjust to what ever party is thrown together.
Roles have nothing whatsoever to do with balance. Nothing at all. They're a completely different topic, all together now (no airplane quotes please :smallwink:)

Saying the DM can adjust things, then complaining about DMs on this board adjusting to make things more balanced, is kind of silly. What kind of adjustments are you thinking of? Purely non-mechanical ones? Because, in the end, every adjustment has a mechanical side. Would you rather your DM make something up on the fly, or that they make use of a board full of people who know the system in and out and have spent hours figuring out how to adjust things to make it more fun for everyone?

Also this game is designed to cooperative game, not competitive. Cooperative between you and the other players, and cooperative between the players and the DM. A competition usually involves winning and a reward for winning. How do win D&D? What's the reward? You see a player lagging behind the rest of the party, why not help him/her out throw them a buff. Check in with the person OoC to make sure they are having fun, and if not what you can do to help that person.
Coop games are more fun when everyone is balanced to each other. Imagine, if you will, playing left 4 dead...only one player is banned from using any weapon besides a basic (single) pistol and no other items. Still coop, still in everyone's best interest to help that player, but far less fun for that player and for the team that has to drag that player around.

Finding a way to give that player the other items/weapons that everyone else has improves the fun of the coop gameplay. Exact same thing with D&D. When everyone is contributing, everyone is having more fun.

I'm going to give you the same piece of advice I give everyone I see who complains about people trying to make the game more balanced. If you're having fun, then you don't need to worry about the people trying to make the game more balanced. They're having fun too, just in a different way then you. Not everyone enjoys the same things. If you feel 3.5 is balanced enough for you, then don't worry about the people trying to balance 3.5 enough for them.

Urpriest

2012-01-26, 03:06 PM

I'm a little curious why you wrote a rant that makes points that have already been debated ad nauseum in thread after thread. Usually if you want to convince someone in an ongoing debate it's better to present a perspective they haven't seen before in order to get them to open up or at least modify their arguments. Did you think anything you wrote was a remotely novel opinion, or are you unfamiliar with the practice of making points to a wider audience?

PersonMan

2012-01-26, 03:20 PM

Class imbalance = Not Fun

Bob and Jack are two people who play DnD. They like making characters, but they prefer to get right into the story and roleplaying, rather than spending a lot of time on mechanics. Jack decides to play a Wizard and Bob goes for a Fighter.

Bob's concept is a master swordsman who eventually becomes a great hero, capable of taking on great beasts with only his sword and his strength. His name is Ralor the Strong.

Jack's concept is that of a wizard who wants to achieve a mastery of the arcane and provide protection to his hometown, as the local wizard is growing old and his own powers aren't enough to defend it yet. He is Telnar.

After a month of playing, they confront a minor villain, who does the standard 'talk them into going evil' thing. He points out that Telnar is doing all the heavy lifting. To get to the hideout of the villain, the wizard teleported both of them, flew over a chasm, and solved the riddle to enter the secret chamber.

Ralor decides that he's had enough, and charges right for the villain, only to be stopped, trapped in a Forcecage! With nothing to do, he watches while Telnar engages in an epic mageduel to defeat the villain.

Ralor is supposed to be a mighty warrior, and Bob is unhappy with the fact that he can just be stopped by a single spell. How can he fight some of the most famous monsters of all, dragons, if he can't even kill a low-level minion of the BBEG?

Why does Bob have to deal with being weaker than Jack? How can he roleplay being a mighty warrior if, as time goes on, he contributes less and less? Why should some people have to suffer from this because these problems don't come up in a certain playstyle?

Chronos

2012-01-26, 03:20 PM

Your complaint is that everyone shouldn't be good at the same thing, and that's true. But what you're missing is that everyone should still be good at something. If the game gets too imbalanced, that doesn't happen, and that's bad.

And a homogeneous party (your example of five clerics, for instance) is much harder to balance, not easier. One of those five clerics is going to be a little better than the others, and there's not going to be much you can do to fix that. You can't just throw encounters at the party for which the others are well-suited, because if they're well-suited for it, the better cleric will be, too. On the other hand, with a diverse party, if (for instance) one character is better at skills than the others, then you can give that character a moment in the spotlight by throwing a skill-based problem at them. It won't matter much if that skill-monkey character is a tricked-out factotum or an out-of-the-box ninja; it's still his time to shine.

Greenish

2012-01-26, 03:33 PM

And a homogeneous party (your example of five clerics, for instance) is much harder to balance, not easier. One of those five clerics is going to be a little better than the others, and there's not going to be much you can do to fix that. You can't just throw encounters at the party for which the others are well-suited, because if they're well-suited for it, the better cleric will be, too.Five clerics might not be the best example of this, since they can be pretty damn diverse. Sneaky cleric, archer cleric, melee cleric, healer cleric, necromancer cleric, summoner cleric, etc, etc.

Mystify

2012-01-26, 03:38 PM

I agree with the rest of the posters. Balanced =/= equal, or the same. That is one thing 4e did wrong, they achieved balance through homogeneity and lack of flexibility, which is the wrong way to do it.

Angel Summoner and BMX bandit (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zFuMpYTyRjw) clearly illustrated the problem with unbalanced characters. The game balance breaks down when certain characters are clearly overshadowing the others. The video even covers the exact scenario you described: the more powerful character notices that the weaker character is not having a good time, and tries to help him out. That does not actually fix anything.

And what difference is there between "I am playing a gish because they are powerful" and" I am playing a character who has learned to blend magic and martial skill to be more powerful"? You can't dismiss every instance of power gaming as "doing it wrong". What the game is about varies from person to person. Some people don't care about combat in the least, and just want a story. Other people don't care about the story, they just want battles. Other people want to play the story of being a powerful hero who takes on powerful foes. Are any of those the wrong way to play?

Just because your campaigns end at level 10 does not mean the balance of the rest of the game is irrelevant. Its a 1-20 system, not a 1-10. I often start my campaigns at level 10. I have played high level campaigns with powerful wizards and clerics, along side bards and scouts and low-tier classes. It is not a fun experience:
optimized fighter A: I uber-charge the monsters, killing 4 of them with a great cleave
scout: I move, gaining my skirmish bonus, and scratch one of them with a couple of arrows!
monster: I backhand the scout and he explodes into a fine mist
powrful caster: *sigh* quickened reach revivify *zaps scout back to life* Superior invisibiliy *becomes impossible to find with anything but true seeing*

Yes,that is quite literally how it worked. The caster could be doing a dozen things to win the combat, but they chose to support the weaker characters, and the weak character were still weak. There was no semblance of interparty balance. Things that wouldn't even challenge the powerful members of the party would be overwhelming to the weaker characters.

You can straighten it out. You can boost up martial characters at high levels, you can keep many of the wizard's signature abilities without breaking the game, instill a core sense of balance, and not end up with boring system. Look at legend (www.ruleofcool.com). If you can honestly describe that as boring I would be highly surprised. The classes are not only distinct, but they capture the essence of the class better then D&D does. The rouge's are more rouge-like, the barbarians are more barbaric, and it maintains balance across all levels, while leaving plenty of room to customize a character to do precisely what you want it to.

gkathellar

2012-01-26, 04:30 PM

Also, the desire and enjoyment of playing with POWR does not prohibit one's desire to roleplay. It is a game, not "roleplaying" and not "rollplaying", just a "game". The game mechanics used are equally important to the play of the game for the fun of playing.

You are a wise man, and learned in the ways of wisdom.

Karoht

2012-01-26, 04:39 PM

Suddo

2012-01-26, 04:49 PM

First off @Binks: Thanks for a name to that fallacy. Now I have a new keyword.

Now to waste my breath, figurative breath, arguing a pointless battle.

4e isn't a no RP world, it could be argued that it is in fact the opposite. By that I mean that due to the lower amount min/max able stuff, by your ideals, that would mean that you would RP more. I mean this is what fourthcore does and lets face it they are often considered some pretty old school dudes.

Also Arcane Gish is a completely legitamate character concept. I mean if it wasn't why are there 2 prestige classes and an alternate class feature just for it (Abjurant Champion, Eldritch Knight and Mage Armor Fighter ACF). And if you want a back story here is a backstory:
Jimmy Gish took to fighting easily. His father was a fighter and his father before that was a fighter, it was in his blood. When Jimmy found some friends and decided to go adventuring he found his Wizard friend, Traeak Hawklight, curios. In the mornings he would watch Hawklight study his books over breakfast and he would watch him scribe scrolls when in town. Though Hawklight didn't punch things or shoot them with a Crossbow he was always helpful to Jimmy always giving him a wall to his back or creating a spell to make sure there weren't too many enemies and because of this Jimmy always made sure Hawklight didn't have to throw a fist.
When Jimmy and his companions became stronger Jimmy followed Hawklight to the Wizard Academy where he was planning on learning a few new spells and powers. The people at the academy looked at Jimmy oddly usually the fighter types didn't care much for the magics and if there were guards they would simply stick to their post and not do much else. But Jimmy was fasinated by everything around him he saw some of the more powerful wizards practice their spell casting or wand wielding skills shooting great fire balls from nothing. They summoned monster from astral planes. They even did simpler things like creating food to eat and water to drink. He followed Hawklight all the way to his master, sometimes falling behind as he looked in awe. When Hawklight reached his destination there was an older man sitting at a desk, books piled up all around him. He glanced up and greeted Hawklight then looked to see Jimmy, who was still in awe of everything around him.
"What is your name fighter?" the old man said. Jimmy quickly snapped out of his trance but was tongue tied and couldn't remember his name.
"This is Jimmy Gish, he's been my companion and he wanted to join me when I came to get more training." Hawklight said try to avoid Jimmy making a complete foul of himself.
"We don't see very main fighters here, Jimmy, most fighter simply see the arcane magics as a fun hobby and wizards as crazed enthusiast." the old man had a small smile on his face, he wasn't often suprised and seeing a young fighter look like a child in front of all the magical items was something he hadn't seen in a long time.
"But..." Jimmy stuttered a little bit still embarrassed by forgetting his name, "But your magic does so much, it creates spectacles of awe and power. It does things I could never hope to learn with my sword." the old man could see the excitement in Jimmy's eyes and in his voice. He seemed smart enough to learn wizardy but the old man knew that it wouldn't be easy.
"You sound like you would like to learn wizardy," said the old man to Jimmy "but it is a long process not something we can teach you over night. My name is Kevkul Chandler, people call me Kev for short, I know someone you may want to talk to. She is a Jack-of-all-trades and can help you begin to understand how to do some of the things we do here." Kev scribled some things on a piece of paper and floated to Jimmy, he didn't need to but wizards loved showing off when they could. When was in distance Jimmy quickly snatched it from the air. "Maybe next time we meet you'll be ready to learn your first few spells," Jimmy nodded his child like excite was back in his face, "but for now I need to teach my student some new things."
Jimmy quickly walked back outside into the streets. He was excited he was going to learn to do things beyond his wildest imaginations. He stood for a second, day dreaming, before some pushed him out of either way. Jimmy then looked down at the piece of paper. On it Kev had written the name "Eilora Windsailor" and a dock number. Jimmy quickly began to jog to the docks, his chainmail clacking as he did it.
A quickly as he could Jimmy arrived at the docks, he had stumbled a few times but his excitement was too much to let that stop him. He found the dock that Kev had mentioned there he saw a ship, not the biggest he'd seen but it had elegance of its own. He found the walkway on board and ducked his way in. The place was a buzz with people walking around. Jimmy pushed his way threw hopping to find higher ground and to spot the person he was looking for. But after a few second of him bumping around he hear a loud whistle and everyone stopped and looked up. Jimmy being a new to this custom didn't look immediately, but did when he noticed where everyone else was looking.
He saw her up on one of the higher tiers of the ship, she was leaning over the railing and it looked like she was laughing. "Who's the new guy on my ship?" she asked. Everyone nearby looked at Jimmy and then Jimmy slowly began to point at himself. "Yes you want do you want?"
Jimmy was a stumbling to find the words again but this time managed to shout out: "Kev sent me here to look for Eilora Windsailor."
She laughed then said: "That old cook never stops amazing me. And what, fine fighter, do you need from me?"
"I want to learn magic but Kev said it might be better to see you first. He called you a Jack-of-all-Trades." everyone around Jimmy snickered.
"Yes that's what a one trick pony like him would call me. Very well come into my office maybe I can help you." she said as she walked away from the balcony, but then she added "But I don't take fouls." Everyone aboard laughed and when Jimmy looked back down he saw that everyone had cleared a path, he only hoped that this wasn't them playing a cruel joke.
When Jimmy got followed the path through the crowd he found him self at a door with the plague that said something Jimmy didn't know it looked even from the style of it. Jimmy opened the door and there Eilora sat at her desk in the glamorous room. There were beautiful pictures and golden items all around.
"You aren't a thief right, the way you gawk at everything almost makes me concerned." Eilora said.
"No I'm just a fighter, I'm not agile enough to be a thief." Jimmy said.
"Good." she said, leaning back in her chain and propping her feet up on the table. "Have a seat." Jimmy walked up and sat down, he nestled himself into the seat thinking it was rather comfy. "So you want to learn wizardy?" she asked, Jimmy simply nodded as his reply, "That old cook better not have unloaded an idiot on me." she mumbled but made sure that it was loud enough for Jimmy to hear, "I'll train you but only because I owe Kev a favor. But now you owe me a favor."
"Okay. What do you need?" Jimmy asked, not knowing what she would ask of him. He doubted it would be something he'd like.
"That's the beauty of it," she said smiling, "you never know till I ask for it." Jimmy didn't like being in debt, his father always told him to not do it, but he didn't think it unreasonable for Eilora to ask for anything back.
"So what should I do first?" Jimmy asked ready to get started learning.
"First? Introduce yourself, its unfair that you know my name and I don't know yours."
"Jimmy Gish." he said smiling and his idiocy for forgetting to say it till now.
"Alright, Jimmy, you first task is to clean off the bottom of my ship. I have to make sure you can work hard before I'll teach you anything." the smile Jimmy had quickly turned into a confused face.
Over the next month, while his other companions trained and visit with the towns people, Jimmy did manual labor for Eilora but not without reward. Eilora kept her promise and did teach Jimmy he taught him how to use scrolls and taught him some of the basic parts of magic and how it worked. After the month was over Jimmy went off on adventuring again. His training didn't offer much but he did feel a step closer to being a wizard learning how scrolls worked and why Hawklight had to study every day and couldn't cast spells all day was good knowledge.
When he returned Eilora set him back to Kev saying he needed some actual schooling on magic now and that the old cook shouldn't send him back her way till he did.

This is a story of someone going Fighter 1/ Human Paragon 1 /Wizard 1 and probably following it up with Human Paragon 2 and later picking up Abjurant Champion and Eldritch Knight. RP isn't bound by the mechanics the mechanics just give you a world to express your idea for your character.

Stormageddon

2012-01-26, 05:14 PM

Your rant seems to be founded on misconceptions. The desire for balance is not to deal with PvP, balance changes aim to make it so that each class can meaningfully contribute to the co-operative effort in any given D&D adventure.

Playing a gish is in fact a perfectly valid character concept, after all how else would you play your Elric knockoffs, but they should mechanically be less good at fighting than someone who dedicated their entire life to martial training. It just makes sense from a story perspective that their magical studies would lead to them having less time to practice swordsmanship.

I would argue what is considered meaningfully contribute to the group means. Ideally if each person at the table is having fun than the contribution to the game should be equal.

I was not ranting against the validity of being a gish, but of making a gish just because it's more powerful. More character concept less making your character powerful because you can.

Mystify

2012-01-26, 05:16 PM

I would argue what is considered meaningfully contribute to the group means. Ideally if each person at the table is having fun than the contribution to the game should be equal.

I was not ranting against the validity of being a gish, but of making a gish just because it's more powerful. More character concept less making your character powerful because you can.
Many people aren't going to have as much fun if they are sitting there being overshadowed. Saying that the system isn't flawed and doesn't need to be fixed because there are a few people who don't mind the flaws is a silly statement.

Stormageddon

2012-01-26, 05:17 PM

Urpriest

2012-01-26, 05:23 PM

Why does a "monk" thread appear every other week?

Because they don't know any better.

Why does a caster "fix" appear every other day or so?

Because their designers think (admittedly, usually incorrectly) that they have created something novel and valuable.

I just felt like doing so. Is the simple answer.

So you don't recognize that there's something wrong with people who repeat the same debate points over and over again as if they've never been answered? You don't find those people irritating in real life?

Stormageddon

2012-01-26, 05:34 PM

You would naturally have me on your side, but you push the wrong buttons.

Just because you don't play past 10th level doesn't mean others do. My group's campaigns start at level one and end at 18+. They end not because of the POWR but rather the Whole Point Plot Point tends to be finished by then. We've played the campaign for almost two real world years. Time to move on.

Also, the desire and enjoyment of playing with POWR does not prohibit one's desire to roleplay. It is a game, not "roleplaying" and not "rollplaying", just a "game". The game mechanics used are equally important to the play of the game for the fun of playing.

I'm not against power of the class, but rather feel like a person shouldn't be made to feel bad because he/she decided to take a class that others consider weaker. As a player you have the choice to play with whatever class you like. So long as you're having fun playing what does it matter that you choose to go with all 20 levels of fighter.

The common answer on this broad when the question of help with my melee character tends to be play gish, warblade, ect.. ect.. because if you don't you'll be completely lost against that person playing the druid. I don't really like that.

Mystify

2012-01-26, 05:39 PM

I'm not against power of the class, but rather feel like a person shouldn't be made to feel bad because he/she decided to take a class that others consider weaker. As a player you have the choice to play with whatever class you like.
That is why class balance is important. If all classes where balanced, this would never be a problem.

ericgrau

2012-01-26, 05:41 PM

Balance good, killing variety bad.

navar100

2012-01-26, 08:02 PM

I'm not against power of the class, but rather feel like a person shouldn't be made to feel bad because he/she decided to take a class that others consider weaker. As a player you have the choice to play with whatever class you like. So long as you're having fun playing what does it matter that you choose to go with all 20 levels of fighter.

The common answer on this broad when the question of help with my melee character tends to be play gish, warblade, ect.. ect.. because if you don't you'll be completely lost against that person playing the druid. I don't really like that.

I agree with you, except you took the Stormwind Fallacy route (insulting high level play is part of that) which diminished the argument.

Big Fau

2012-01-26, 09:16 PM

Balance good, killing variety bad.

Exactly. Removing variance in favor of balance is what should be avoided, and is a prime reason 4E had trouble at launch.

Knaight

2012-01-26, 09:25 PM

Exactly. Removing variance in favor of balance is what should be avoided, and is a prime reason 4E had trouble at launch.

Variance and balance are not two ends of a zero sum scale. A game that is actually well designed can have both, without any issue. 4e's problem is not that they removed variance in favor of balance, but that they balanced via homogeneity because it was easy, and the level of homogeneity was too great for a significant portion of players. For others, other games have too much heterogeneity.

As for people "being made to feel bad" about taking a lower power class, that isn't the point at all. The point is that the system was balanced poorly, and as such certain concepts (such as, say, actually competent warrior) are inordinately difficult to pull off with the classes that theoretically fulfill those roles. Others (such as a wizard far more powerful than basically any magic user in fantasy) are inordinately difficult to avoid when using classes that theoretically fulfill roles that you actually want.

ericgrau

2012-01-26, 10:13 PM

Doc Roc

2012-01-26, 10:18 PM

Our classes are cooler.
Our classes are better balanced.
We have weremummy robots about to be released.

Thesis: Crushed.

Lonely Tylenol

2012-01-26, 10:19 PM

I have, at present, a party of twelve containing the following (I say "at present" because I am trying, albeit unsuccessfully, to convert them to Legend):
2 Warblades (one going straight Warblade, one going Master of the Nine)
2 Magi (Pathfinder class, with spell list splatted out for 3.5) (one going Jade Phoenix Mage via Swordsage, one going Abjurant Champion)
1 Alchemist (Pathfinder class, with spell list splatted out for 3.5) (likely straight Alchemist, or Alchemist Savant)
1 "Cloistered" Favored Soul with healbot ACF from PHBII (not sure about PrC intentions, but is probably going to healbot it up all the way if given the opportunity)
1 Shadowcaster (likely going Assassin, then Noctumancer)
1 Factotum (probably straight Factotum, because Factotum, that's why)
1 Scout (possibly going Swift Hunter Ranger)
1 Rogue/Spellthief (likely going Assassin with Swordsage dips)
1 Spirit Bear Whirling Frenzy Barbarian (likely either going Bear Warrior or staying Barbarian)
1 Bard (Swiftblade)

Here's a thought exercise:
Spot the class in this group that absolutely obliterates every other class in usefulness, to the point where other classes are made useless by their presence.

Now*:
Spot the classes in this group that lack some unique ability, or a unique application of some skill, or are homogenized, or are incapable of being played in a unique or interesting fashion.
*NOTE: You can't say "the Warblades are the same", or "the Magi are the same".

You can have a large party with a diverse array of abilities that is well-balanced against each other. It's not that hard to do, actually.

Leon

2012-01-26, 10:33 PM

Balance is a tricky thing to agree on - What is balanced for one group may not be for another.

Coidzor

2012-01-27, 03:21 AM

I'm not against power of the class, but rather feel like a person shouldn't be made to feel bad because he/she decided to take a class that others consider weaker. As a player you have the choice to play with whatever class you like. So long as you're having fun playing what does it matter that you choose to go with all 20 levels of fighter.

Yeah, and as the guy sitting across the table from you, I'm within my rights to get annoyed at you for making a fighter who can't do the job he's supposed to fill in combat, so that my role in combat is all the more difficult because the encounters have been balanced under the assumption that the fighter would be contributing.

There's some level of obligation to be a team player and social pressure to perform at the level that everyone has agreed to play at or that the average skill level, system mastery, and ability to devote energy to the game devolves to.

Ettin

2012-01-27, 05:57 AM

I'm not against power of the class, but rather feel like a person shouldn't be made to feel bad because he/she decided to take a class that others consider weaker.

So why have that weakness built into the system? Should the fighter have to "earn" his fun or something?

Doc Roc

2012-01-27, 07:32 AM

Yeah, and as the guy sitting across the table from you, I'm within my rights to get annoyed at you for making a fighter who can't do the job he's supposed to fill in combat, so that my role in combat is all the more difficult because the encounters have been balanced under the assumption that the fighter would be contributing.

There's some level of obligation to be a team player and social pressure to perform at the level that everyone has agreed to play at or that the average skill level, system mastery, and ability to devote energy to the game devolves to.

I'm backing the Coid on this one. And before you start to shout about judgment calls and how it's terrible that he thinks fighter-20 badwrongfun, understand that this is his goodrightfun. He wants to play a tactical game. He wants to avoid death by hezrou.

Leon

2012-01-27, 08:40 AM

He wants to avoid death by hezrou.

This is independent of there being a fighter in any given group.

A lvl 20 Fighter is just capable as any other class when played well.

Circle of Life

2012-01-27, 08:48 AM

This is independent of there being a fighter in any given group.

A lvl 20 Fighter is just capable as any other class when played well.

Except that it's really, really not.

Witness every Fighter fix ever.

Witness the Fighter 20 vs Wizard 13 (or lower) threads.

Witness the mechanical deficits of the Fighter class that can only be solved by one of the following: multiclassing, spending inordinate amounts of wealth, or being helped by outside forces.

Polarity Shift

2012-01-27, 08:54 AM

Because they don't know any better.

Because their designers think (admittedly, usually incorrectly) that they have created something novel and valuable.

So you don't recognize that there's something wrong with people who repeat the same debate points over and over again as if they've never been answered? You don't find those people irritating in real life?

I think he's just ranting. The title even says he's just ranting.

That said I'm fine with people making weak characters. They'll die quickly, the rest of the party will get their loot (seeing as they aren't worth the expense to raise or resurrect), and then their players will either make something better or repeat the cycle again. It's a win all around.

When it comes right down to it most of the time it's the weak guy's fault. If you apply to a game that says it will be difficult with a Paladin that is immune to most healing and that has low defenses and even lower offenses you shouldn't be surprised if you end up dying to stray AoE blasts and AoOs without ever being directly targeted.

Even in games that are not designed for high difficulty the weak guy is still slowing everyone else down. Whereas the reverse, a strong character in a group of weaklings is likely the only reason that party is still alive. If you try to say he's the problem and limit him then random encounter tables fall and everyone dies.

Nabirius

2012-01-27, 09:13 AM

If a player is really lagging behind the rest of the team, in my experience it's usually because the character is built a lot weaker than the rest of the team. So he needs a buff ... to balance out the power.

I do get what you're saying. Yes, it's possible to design an encounter that plays to each class's strengths and weaknesses. This is actually a lot easier to do when the classes are at a similar level of power, and easier still when they're all the same class. A party full of Clerics? Easy to plan for. Bards? Also easy. A bunch of lower-tiers like Rogue, Paladin, Fighter ... okay, even Monk? Any DM worth the title can throw together something that would be challenging and fun for them. The big problems come when the strongest class is significantly more powerful than the weakest. If you're playing with a Wizard, Cleric, Druid, and Truenamer (to take an extreme example), the effort required to design that would be pretty close to superhuman. The game has to be fun for the DM, too.

Yes, it's possible (and overwhelmingly common, in my experience) for the players to have a "gentleman's agreement" not to try to break the game. "God wizards" (and Clerics, Druids, Artificers, Archivists, etc.) are more of a theoretical exercise and a learning experience for DMs, so they know about problematic spells and combinations before somebody uses one accidentally. There are a lot of easy houserules for those issues; it's a very fixable system. But the fact that it's "fixable" means that it's broken. If a gentleman's agreement is necessary, if the players and DM have to actively look out for broken stuff, there's something wrong with the game design.

Ah, the 'gentleman's agreement', I played a game in which that agreement was curb-stomped. We had Sorcerer, Cleric, Druid, and a soul knife once. I was the sorcerer in this particular game so I kept up decently well, but our poor soul knife essentially ended up sitting in a tree, using a bow to tweak enemies, we had started the campaign at level 9 (2 of us had LA), and unfortunately the soul-knife had not planned to prc at all, so the Soulbow was closed. I still feel bad about that game.

To the OP, I respectfully disagree. Certain classes need help. Not even just because they are bad, but because they are kind of boring (Fighter, looking at you) the fighter gets nothing interesting, or even unique for being a fighter, no class features, and the feat selection isn't always great. Mages get more from their few bonus feats than fighters get from all of them.

TheMeMan

2012-01-27, 09:28 AM

Exactly. Removing variance in favor of balance is what should be avoided, and is a prime reason 4E had trouble at launch.

I would argue that part of the issue in 3.5 is the variance of what Wizards(And other full-casters) can do. To the point, their abilities can effectively "break the game" without the player even realizing it(Been on the receiving end of this when a player in my group played a Wizard, didn't know what he was doing at all, and dominating everything). That said, part of this issue involves splat and the like: Most additional books and the like that were produced heavily favored casters, and largely ignored combat types. There are at least three books I can think of off the top of my hand which are solely dedicated to full-casters, and every book that was produced has dozens of goodies for the casters, and only a few treats for non-casters.

That said, another problem isn't so much with the variance, but with the ability of casters. Casting comes at no meaningful cost to the caster. Sure, you have a few less HP, but at mid levels that means nothing. You can out combat the combat types. You can bring about the end of the world if you want with relative ease. You can know the future with a decent degree of accuracy and time.

The issue of balance isn't so much saying "Every class should be able to do this!" but instead that there are a few classes that can quite literally do everything, and often time better than the classes that were meant for such a job. That's where variance becomes a problem: If you are doing a job better than another character specifically built for it, it's not increasing variance but rather decreasing it. And the Wizard can do that, and all their normal trick as well! And most of the tricks as other casters! At relatively mid to low levels. That is a problem.

Curious

2012-01-27, 09:33 AM

-Snip-

That's not a problem with variety, that's a problem with prepared spellcasters and ridiculous spells. It is perfectly possible to have varied and interesting classes that are still balanced against one another, as has already been demonstrated by this thread. Check out Lonely Tylenol's post.

Leon

2012-01-27, 09:37 AM

Except that it's really, really not.

How is it?

A class is not going to inherently cause DbH. One that is played badly may well - even the wizard is a possible cause of that.

A good group will be able to make any combination of classes work. They know that there is more to the game than whether this class is better than that class and can work to the strengths and work to avoid the weaknesses of all in the group (as much as the Wizard is vaunted it still has weaknesses)

TheMeMan

2012-01-27, 09:44 AM

That's not a problem with variety, that's a problem with prepared spellcasters and ridiculous spells. It is perfectly possible to have varied and interesting classes that are still balanced against one another, as has already been demonstrated by this thread. Check out Lonely Tylenol's post.

Oh, absolutely. I never meant to actually insinuate otherwise. The problem I was addressing, however, involve the Prepared Casters and the ability to relatively easily cover all of those spots in mid-level games, occasionally better than the classes meant to do so. When I'm talking about "balancing" spell-casting, a large part of that is the Big 3, or more precisely the Wizard. That said, there are ways around this in some cases(Such as variants and the like), but frankly as-printed the issue with full-casters(And particularly prepared casters) is that they can do everything and anything, always, starting at mid levels. Whereas most of the combat types have only one or two tricks which makes them meaningful.

Once again, going into variety. There just aren't that many nice things for combat types. There are only a smattering of good ways to make them meaninful(And those ways tend to be extremely effective). At the end of the day, however, they have one or two fields they can fit into and that's it. Whereas the casters can fit into dozens of roles, all of which are effective in some means or another.

Dimers

2012-01-27, 11:10 AM

So long as you're having fun playing what does it matter that you choose to go with all 20 levels of fighter.

Why might it matter, as long as you are having fun?

While I don't suggest that you're responsible for someone else's fun, I'd like to point out that your fellow players might not enjoy poor intraparty balance regardless of whether they play the more powerful PCs. It tends to decrease immersion and verisimilitude, in my experience. ("Taim's playing a samurai again." "Oh, joy. Another opportunity for my life-loving character to mourn. I hope the DM doesn't make me RP the elegy this time.")

When I play for long periods with people who won't or can't optimize, I always end up replacing my stronger character with one who matches my low-powered companions. That means I lose my investment and my connection to my character. Some characters being useful and others not is no fun for me, either way. Everyone being useless isn't much better, but at least it feels fair. If your position, Taim, is that it's boring to have all characters contributing about equally in a game, well, be aware that there are people who believe the opposite -- that the game is boring if the players can't all contribute fairly.

Tyndmyr

2012-01-27, 01:06 PM

This is independent of there being a fighter in any given group.

A lvl 20 Fighter is just capable as any other class when played well.

Not really, no. Not as capable as an equally well played lvl 20 wizard.

Or, for that matter, an equally well played lvl 13 wizard, judging from the previous competition results.

Polarity Shift

2012-01-27, 01:16 PM

Not really, no. Not as capable as an equally well played lvl 20 wizard.

Or, for that matter, an equally well played lvl 13 wizard, judging from the previous competition results.

Or any class. Monks are worse, almost all others are better. Still not as capable.

gkathellar

2012-01-27, 01:20 PM

A lvl 20 Fighter is just capable as any other class when played well.

No, this is simply untrue. The percentage of classes who can perform the fighter's job better than the fighter, even in core-only, is staggering. In core, we're talking all four primary spellcasters + barbarians. Outside of core, it comes out to every single core class other than the monk and potentially the paladin, and almost every other base class not published in Complete Warrior.

And almost every one of those classes can do something else acceptably, in addition to doing the fighter's job better than him. Many, even in core-only, can render the fighter's job totally irrelevant. This has been tested (of Spite) and documented. It's not really up for debate anymore.

erikun

2012-01-27, 01:51 PM

Since we are revisiting this topic (again), I feel like making a note about something.

Playing a game has different goals and challanges than designing a game.

When playing a game, problems are not created by class imbalance but by character imbalance. It really doesn't matter how much a character could do, but rather what they do, and how much they step on each other. A druid who can take entire encounters apart solo and heal off the damage afterwards isn't going to be imbalancing in a party featuring a bard collecting the legendary tales of a mystic artifact and a diplomancing aristocrat, because what the druid does has nothing to do with what the bard and aristocrat do. On the other hand, a single optimized wizard in a group of unoptimized wizards can be just as disruptive as a single chaotic stupid party member, or the neutral good pacifist in a raid-dungeon-kill-everything game.

When designing a game, though, the goals are to create valid options for characters and promote a good interaction between players (however the game defines "good"). In this sense, class balance is important, because it allows players to create characters that can do what they want them to do. Creating a fighter that can't fight is just as detracting as creating a fighter than is overshadowed by another character. Good game design enables good gameplay, because there will be less situations where one ends up objectively better than a second character at everything the second character is supposed to be good at.

Coidzor

2012-01-27, 04:49 PM

A good group will be able to make any combination of classes work. They know that there is more to the game than whether this class is better than that class and can work to the strengths and work to avoid the weaknesses of all in the group (as much as the Wizard is vaunted it still has weaknesses)

Are you just completely forgetting the context where we're talking about someone who is playing a character who isn't capable of doing the job it sets out to do but is theoretically capable of doing in the eyes of the designers and the language of the system, and so his character is actually just making things more difficult for the rest of the party by being there? :smallconfused:

Because even you should recognize that this is not an impossible or all that outlandish scenario.

Hell, from the number of people who rant on and on about how their fighter/monk/ranger/rogue/paladin/soulknife isn't weak even when their character only is capable of doing its job at all and badly by sucking down buffs and leaving holes in other aspects of the group's defences that you've had to have encountered here on the board, you should be able to recognize that some people play badly, build badly, and then are stubborn mules about learning to play at the level of their peers, or even act childish and throw hissy fits in the face of even the most casual advice.

Do you think we're saying that people who incompetently play wizards are beyond reproach or something? :smallconfused: I'm honestly not sure what I'd be more annoyed by to be honest, between someone who picked a class without much in the way of options and was terribad at it or someone who picked a complex class and then treated it like a hammer and never adjusted when they found out it was a bloody sonic screwdriver.

But I'd bally well be annoyed at his billy boy attitude too.

Polarity Shift

2012-01-27, 06:10 PM

Doc Roc

2012-01-27, 06:34 PM

Coidzor

2012-01-27, 07:08 PM

This problem is being made out to be more complex than it actually is.

Someone refuses to make capable characters?

They die, the party loots them and does not raise them.

Repeat as often as is required.

Optional: Make South Park jokes regularly.

The same DM that doesn't do anything to compensate for the weak character (like, say, occupying him with a stuffed animal while the rest of the party has a real encounter) is likely going to be doing things to prevent that from really being an effective wealth gathering strategy.

Mystify

2012-01-27, 08:20 PM

There's actually an arbitrary wealth hack here.
Technically, if the party keeps the old character's wealth, then the new character doesn't come in loaded with magic items and gold.

Doug Lampert

2012-01-27, 09:12 PM

Technically, if the party keeps the old character's wealth, then the new character doesn't come in loaded with magic items and gold.

As far as I know that's a houserule. I've been using it for decades now. But I know of no RAW that says to do that.

Mystify

2012-01-27, 09:18 PM

As far as I know that's a houserule. I've been using it for decades now. But I know of no RAW that says to do that.
I read it in the official FAQ

erikun

2012-01-27, 11:37 PM

As far as I know that's a houserule. I've been using it for decades now. But I know of no RAW that says to do that.
There is absolutely nothing, anywhere, that indicates that a high-level character begins with anything beyond the the starting gold package. The much talked about Wealth by Level chart is a listing of what a character is expected to have by a specific level; in is not an indication (or even recommendation) about what a starting character of a specific level should have.

Nevermind, late night stupidity.

Flickerdart

2012-01-28, 12:06 AM

Mystify

2012-01-28, 12:13 AM

A high-level character doesn't just some into the world at level 20 or what have you. He earned his way there same as the still-living PCs. Why shouldn't he have wealth according to the guideline for his level?
NPCs with class levels have significantly less wealth by level than PCs do. Why should this random person be any different before being a PC?

Flickerdart

2012-01-28, 12:16 AM

Because the system assumes that his equipment is somewhere above "tin can plate mail". If he doesn't start with PC wealth, he better be caught up to PC wealth right quick, or he'll fall off the RNG and into fire.

0nimaru

2012-01-28, 12:17 AM

The character was always a PC, you're just now tuning in to his adventures.

As for WBL not being recommended, it is. There are two separate charts in the DMG. One reads WBL for creating new characters, and the other shows wealth gain by active characters per level. You can pretend what you want, but PCs are created with appropriate WBL for their level and the DM decision.

Knaight

2012-01-28, 12:22 AM

A less complicated system is far easier to balance though and variety usually leads to complication. It's tricky to work around. So far I've seen "don't pull dirty tricks" work ok in all my gaming groups and others', though it's not perfect. It's the homebrew drastic system rewrites that tend to fail spectacularly at both goals since a single schmo can't handle that much complication in his spare time.

This is where "competence" comes in. Moreover, if you have to actively work around the system for it not to cause problems, then you should probably get a better system. "Don't pull dirty tricks" shouldn't even be necessary, and when it is necessary it should do more than just work OK.

Leon

2012-01-28, 12:27 AM

People can and will play anything badly.

A Fighter/Monk/Flying Green Octagon is as playable as any wizard is at any level. That the Fighter/Monk/FGO may need some buffs is not a bad thing - its a bad thing for the class with options to help the rest of the group not to do so.

someone who is playing a character who isn't capable of doing the job it sets out to do but is theoretically capable of doing in the eyes of the designers and the language of the system, and so his character is actually just making things more difficult for the rest of the party by being there

So you insist - despite the fact that while it may occur sometimes it is not a absolute.

Maybe its just me and my luck at finding several gaming groups that are not stuck in the mud and can actually work with anything anyone comes along with without worrying that the melee may not keep up with the casters and take on challenges that should be too hard for any group of a given level.

Said it before will say it again: A Good group can make anything work.

Are you in a good group? I know I am.

Hiro Protagonest

2012-01-28, 12:34 AM

That's kinda defeating the point of fighter being capable when he requires a wizard or cleric to be there to make him capable. A cleric or warblade or crusader is much more capable than the fighter.

Coidzor

2012-01-28, 12:36 AM

This is where "competence" comes in. Moreover, if you have to actively work around the system for it not to cause problems, then you should probably get a better system. "Don't pull dirty tricks" shouldn't even be necessary, and when it is necessary it should do more than just work OK.

True, but even Fax who is generally agreed to have a fair bit of chops to 'em and isn't working completely alone has had to take a lot of time to do what he's done so far in regards to it. So it is a significant investment of time to DIY. Possibly less to tweak the work of those who have gone before, but then that opens up a new bit of difficulty I think, in finding good examples of that work.

Hmm... Now I'm wondering how long Legend took from idea to recruitment and then from recruitment to tackling the matte and then from tackling to first release.

IthroZada

2012-01-28, 12:37 AM

There is absolutely nothing, anywhere, that indicates that a high-level character begins with anything beyond the the starting gold package. The much talked about Wealth by Level chart is a listing of what a character is expected to have by a specific level; in is not an indication (or even recommendation) about what a starting character of a specific level should have.

Page 42 and 199 of the DMG both disagree.

Curious

2012-01-28, 12:38 AM

Helldog

2012-01-28, 12:46 AM

That's kinda defeating the point of fighter being capable when he requires a wizard or cleric to be there to make him capable. A cleric or warblade or crusader is much more capable than the fighter.

No, it's a bad thing that those classes need those buffs to operate on a competent level in the first place. If they were in any way balanced, they wouldn't need to be buffed up by team-mates to contribute. Furthermore, all classes should have options; it shouldn't be a situation where some players have the ability to Do Things and others must rely on their kindness to be allowed to have fun.
D&D is a cooperative game, lol remember?

Hiro Protagonest

2012-01-28, 12:52 AM

D&D is a cooperative game, lol remember?

Doesn't make a difference when the cleric's buffing himself, the warblade doesn't need buffs, and the wizard's wasting spells and actions buffing the fighter when he could just throw up a Web and a Fireball.

Curious

2012-01-28, 12:53 AM

D&D is a cooperative game, lol remember?

'Cooperation' does not mean one party member hauls the rest up by dint of his godly power. All members of a party should be equally powerful, so they can all make an equal contribution. Why should one person have to support the entire team?

Mystify

2012-01-28, 12:56 AM

D&D is a cooperative game, lol remember?

There is a difference between "I need a buff", and "this class helps your teammates". Being a cooperative game does not mean classes should be reliant on other classes. It means teamwork should be encouraged. When class A needs team support to function, and class B doesn't need allies, something is clearly wrong.

Knaight

2012-01-28, 02:00 AM

True, but even Fax who is generally agreed to have a fair bit of chops to 'em and isn't working completely alone has had to take a lot of time to do what he's done so far in regards to it. So it is a significant investment of time to DIY. Possibly less to tweak the work of those who have gone before, but then that opens up a new bit of difficulty I think, in finding good examples of that work.

Hmm... Now I'm wondering how long Legend took from idea to recruitment and then from recruitment to tackling the matte and then from tackling to first release.

Sure, but the balancing is initially the business of the actual game designers. Which, in the case of D&D, are paid, are a team, have access to all sorts of data, don't have to balance designing with their job by virtue of those being the same thing, and have any number of other advantages. I expect a design team that cares about balance (as the D&D team allegedly did) to not completely screw it up in a complex system with lots of options - moreover, time and time again, they've done just that, without an issue.

Helldog

2012-01-28, 02:05 AM

Doesn't make a difference when the cleric's buffing himself, the warblade doesn't need buffs, and the wizard's wasting spells and actions buffing the fighter when he could just throw up a Web and a Fireball.
Well, that's hardly a cooperative game then. If players choose to play a game that way, what can I do? I'm not even trying to say that they're doing it wrong or something. Everyone plays like they want. But D&D is first and foremost a cooperative game, not competitive, so there is no surprise that somethings not right when you have an incompatible mindset.

'Cooperation' does not mean one party member hauls the rest up by dint of his godly power. All members of a party should be equally powerful, so they can all make an equal contribution. Why should one person have to support the entire team?
Oh? Maybe in a perfect world everyone is equally competent. But in real world it's hard to have everyone with the same skills. There's bound to be someone better and someone worse. D&D is a game, a type of game where you're not supposed to throw a fit because you have to drag a dead weight behind you. You're supposed to be a team player. Would it really diminish your fun that much if your Wizard would waste his precious spells and time to help a fellow team member? Seriously. You're not able to lessen your fun even a little, when it could rise the overall fun at the table and probably make the game much more fun for the player of the weaker character?

There is a difference between "I need a buff", and "this class helps your teammates". Being a cooperative game does not mean classes should be reliant on other classes. It means teamwork should be encouraged. When class A needs team support to function, and class B doesn't need allies, something is clearly wrong.
Being a cooperative game means that you're in a team. That doesn't mean everyone must be equal. It means that you support each other. And because D&D isn't a game in which you win money or prizes, but you play it for fun, the most important thing to do is to make sure that everyone has fun. Yes, you might have less fun because you had to waste your spell to help your party member, but you still had fun. and the whole group had fun. And that's what it's about, is it not?

Coidzor

2012-01-28, 02:14 AM

Sure, but the balancing is initially the business of the actual game designers. Which, in the case of D&D, are paid, are a team, have access to all sorts of data, don't have to balance designing with their job by virtue of those being the same thing, and have any number of other advantages. I expect a design team that cares about balance (as the D&D team allegedly did) to not completely screw it up in a complex system with lots of options - moreover, time and time again, they've done just that, without an issue.

Yeah. Kind of depressing, really.

Binks

2012-01-28, 02:16 AM

A Fighter/Monk/Flying Green Octagon is as playable as any wizard is at any level. That the Fighter/Monk/FGO may need some buffs is not a bad thing - its a bad thing for the class with options to help the rest of the group not to do so.

Absolutely correct. And a telegraph is as useful as a system of communication as the internet. Theoretically both can send exactly the same message to exactly the same people after all, even if one takes a little more work to do so. Why do people keep trying to design systems of communication that don't need as much work to be good at what they do? A good group of friends can make any form of communication work.

/sarcasm

Saying that balance isn't needed because the Wizard can throw a couple of extra spells on the Fighter to make him useful is just ridiculous frankly. The Fighter shouldn't need help to fight. It's his job!

Imagine that attitude in a work environment. 'Oh yes Frank over there is completely incapable of handling half the work that the other employees can do without issue, but luckily Steve is around to help Frank out, so it all balances out in the end.' 'Have you thought about hiring someone who can actually do the job without needing help?' 'Of course not, don't be silly! So long as Frank can do his job with help there's no reason to even consider trying to hire someone competent for the job.'

The game is more fun when everyone is good at doing what they want to do without needing the help of someone else. The sneaky rogue guy should be able to sneak around and bypass obstacles without needing buffs cast on him by the wizard. The fighter should be a presence in combat without needing buffs cast on him by the wizard. And the wizard should be able to be wizard-y instead of having to buff everyone else to make it through the adventure. The game is more fun that way, and that's why people on this board go through the hard work of trying to balance the classes out, to have more fun.

Mystify

2012-01-28, 02:20 AM

Well, that's hardly a cooperative game then. If players choose to play a game that way, what can I do? I'm not even trying to say that they're doing it wrong or something. Everyone plays like they want. But D&D is first and foremost a cooperative game, not competitive, so there is no surprise that somethings not right when you have an incompatible mindset.

Oh? Maybe in a perfect world everyone is equally competent. But in real world it's hard to have everyone with the same skills. There's bound to be someone better and someone worse. D&D is a game, a type of game where you're not supposed to throw a fit because you have to drag a dead weight behind you. You're supposed to be a team player. Would it really diminish your fun that much if your Wizard would waste his precious spells and time to help a fellow team member? Seriously. You're not able to lessen your fun even a little, when it could rise the overall fun at the table and probably make the game much more fun for the player of the weaker character?

Being a cooperative game means that you're in a team. That doesn't mean everyone must be equal. It means that you support each other. And because D&D isn't a game in which you win money or prizes, but you play it for fun, the most important thing to do is to make sure that everyone has fun. Yes, you might have less fun because you had to waste your spell to help your party member, but you still had fun. and the whole group had fun. And that's what it's about, is it not?

Why would having balanced classes disrupt the cooperative nature? When things aren't equal, it does disrupt the game. Either you have to play down to the weak person, who is now holding you back, and hence not being a proper contributing member of the team, or you play up to the stronger members, and leave everyone else feeling weak.
In proper cooperative play, everyone is contributing equally. They don't do the same things, but they are all important parts of the team. Its not fun to be a dead weight, constantly overshadowed by everyone else. You shouldn't need to stop and do something different to help the other team members have fun, they should be able to stand on their own. You said it yourself, you have less fun if you have to help your party members instead of doing your own thing. Why does that need to be the case? Why can't you play your class to have fun, and have their class be fun all by itself? You are acting like the power disparity encourages teamwork. It doesn't. It hinders it.

LoneStarNorth

2012-01-28, 02:41 AM

An example I like is having a party consisting of Tiger, Bear, Eagle, and Shark. All really tough animals, but all tough in different ways. They can support each other and accomplish tasks through teamwork that none of them could alone.

What you get in 3.5 is a party with Tiger, Bear, Tyrannosaurus, and Chicken. Sure, Tiger and Bear can pull their weight, but really, most of the time the game plan is to stand behind Tyrannosaurus. It's just safer to let him do the fighting for you, since he's so much better at it, ESPECIALLY if you find yourselves fighting an ENEMY Tyrannosaurus. Conversely, Chicken's ONLY recourse is to ride around on Tyrannosaurus' back because he just doesn't have the tools to contribute on his own.

If you don't realize that D&D 3.5 has Tyrannosaurus and Chickens in the same books, that's one thing, but it seems like some people are saying Chicken is having just as much fun as the other animals, and that's what's baffling the rest of us.

NNescio

2012-01-28, 02:45 AM

Helldog

2012-01-28, 02:59 AM

Why would having balanced classes disrupt the cooperative nature?
That's not what I'm saying. Like, not at all.

When things aren't equal, it does disrupt the game. Either you have to play down to the weak person, who is now holding you back, and hence not being a proper contributing member of the team, or you play up to the stronger members, and leave everyone else feeling weak.
I'm not saying that it's not. :smallannoyed: I'm just saying that it SHOULDN'T. That's what the game assumes. That you aren't playing competitive, but cooperative.

In proper cooperative play, everyone is contributing equally.
Actually, no. In proper cooperative play a player doesn't get sad because he has to help a teammate. Or a weaker player doesn't get sad because other PC is better. Everyone just does what he can and has fun at it. Take soccer for example. If you play with your friends, it doesn't matter that you're not Ronaldinio. You might be the worst soccer player in your neighborhood, and maybe you're picked last, but you still play and have fun, your friends won't disallow you to play. Professional soccer OTOH is serious business and a weak player will be replaced with a strong player, because big money. Amiright? :smalltongue:
That's how D&D is supposed to work. Unfortunately most people take the game too damn serious. :smallannoyed: (not that there's anything wrong with that, like I said, everyone plays how he likes)

They don't do the same things, but they are all important parts of the team.
And is in-party balance REQUIRED for everyone to be an important part of the team? Is it required for cooperation to work?

Its not fun to be a dead weight, constantly overshadowed by everyone else.
Different people have different priorities. Is it really that unimaginable that some players don't actually care about this things? I'm not saying you shouldn't care. I'm not saying you're playing the game wrong. I'm not saying that balance is irrelevant.
Really.
I'm just saying that people who complain about balance (and I am one of those people, I don't complain but I do dislike the imbalance) forget that the game was intended to be played differently.

You shouldn't need to stop and do something different to help the other team members have fun, they should be able to stand on their own.
That's just selfish.

You said it yourself, you have less fun if you have to help your party members instead of doing your own thing.
Yes, I said less fun. Less doesn't mean no fun at all.

Why can't you play your class to have fun, and have their class be fun all by itself?
Because your class has more power and their less? If you don't want to help teammates, don't play a class that can do it easily. "With great power comes great responsibility", ever heard that saying? :smallwink:

You are acting like the power disparity encourages teamwork. It doesn't. It hinders it.
Sorry but you're mistaken. I do no such thing.

Mystify

2012-01-28, 03:19 AM

Nobody said that these problems can't be worked around, and that there aren't parties that get along just find despite the disparity. But just because some people don't care about a flaw doesn't make it any less of an issue.
We said was problem that classes were unbalanced. You dismissed that problem by saying the game is cooperative, and hence the disparity does not matter.

And as someone who is not very good at sports, it does mean you have less fun. You can smile and play anyways, but if the other people are much better than you, its not as fun. You can have a bunch of people playing equally ineptly, or you can have a lot of people playing well, but mixing the two is less satisfactory.

Designing a system so that some classes can be awesome by themselves, yet others rely on others to make them function, is a fundamentally flawed idea. Its how D&D works, but it shouldn't be. Even if its intentional, it is wrong. People complain about balance because it is a fundamentally important issue to the game. I've played in groups with equal power among players, and in groups with huge disparities. Even though everyone was trying to work together with he disparities, it still yielded a much less satisfactory experience for everyone. I had a powerful character, and I felt bad for hogging the spotlight. I wanted the other people to be fighting on the same level, but they couldn't. And there wasn't much I could do about it, besides not utilize my abilities, which is not very fun either. It doesn't matter if everyone had fun, the flaw in the game means we were having less fun. If it diminishes the fun, it is a problem. You can't claim its not a problem because it didn't destroy every last iota of fun present in the game.

Helldog

2012-01-28, 03:25 AM

But just because some people don't care about a flaw doesn't make it any less of an issue.
Didn't say it does.

We said was problem that classes were unbalanced. You dismissed that problem by saying the game is cooperative, and hence the disparity does not matter.
Really? Because I don't remember doing that. What I remember doing is posting that the game was supposed to be cooperative. All the problems with imbalance stem from the fact that too many players are too competitive.

And as someone who is not very good at sports, it does mean you have less fun. You can smile and play anyways, but if the other people are much better than you, its not as fun. You can have a bunch of people playing equally ineptly, or you can have a lot of people playing well, but mixing the two is less satisfactory.
You're saying that like it's the absolute truth. It isn't. I still remember how I played ball with friends. I don't remember having no fun just because my pals ere better than me. I'd rather think that, by having a good day and playing exceptionally good, I had MORE fun then normally, not that I had less fun (or no fun) because normally I was worse than others. The cup is half full, not half empty and that jazz.

Mystify

2012-01-28, 03:49 AM

Really? Because I don't remember doing that. What I remember doing is posting that the game was supposed to be cooperative. All the problems with imbalance stem from the fact that too many players are too competitive.

The game being cooperative does not mean that balance is any less of an issue. Players do not have to be the least bit competitive to have problems with improper balance. I had a character that would deal several thousand damage in a round. My teammate did about 50, if he was lucky. You don't need to be competitive to see how that is a serious issue. You could pile every buff in the system on the character and they still wouldn't measure up. There isn't anything I can do to help them. The player is essentially useless in combat, which means they aren't engaged, and not having fun. He literally spend most of the session watching shows on his laptop.
If all the members are not contributing in a meaningful manner, it causes serious issues. You can't just handwave that away by saying

D&D is a cooperative game, lol remember?
I would much rather play a cooperative game with someone of a roughly equal skill level than someone significantly better or worse than me. I don't want to outshine people, and I don't want to be outshone. Its a great moment where you accomplish something as a result of your teamwork. It is not a great moment when you are casting 12 buffs on the fighter so he can do his job. Buffing is supposed to be a nice bonus, not a necessity.
Just because some groups can function despite these flaws in the system does not mitigate the issue. You are pretty much saying "I don't care about this, so you are all wrong about considering this an issue".

You're saying that like it's the absolute truth. It isn't. I still remember how I played ball with friends. I don't remember having no fun just because my pals ere better than me. I'd rather think that, by having a good day and playing exceptionally good, I had MORE fun then normally, not that I had less fun (or no fun) because normally I was worse than others. The cup is half full, not half empty and that jazz.
just because some people don't care if they suck at an activity does not make it a good idea, or even an acceptable idea, to design a system where some classes are gods and other suck.

Helldog

2012-01-28, 04:39 AM

The game being cooperative does not mean that balance is any less of an issue.
Didn't say that it isn't. How many times do I have to repeat myself?

Players do not have to be the least bit competitive to have problems with improper balance.
Err, I don't think that we use the same definition of "competitive" and "cooperative".
In a competition everyone is out for himself. You want to win so you think about yourself. That's what you're talking about and that's how many people think when they play D&D. "The classes/characters must be balanced because I won't help my weaker teammate, it's not fun to help" or "The classes/characters must be balanced because the weaker classes will definitely have no fun". You apparently don't believe that there are people that don't care. Every time I say "Hey, but some people don't care, is all I'm saying" you go and repeat "Everybody doesn't like to be overshadowed, everybody will definitely have no fun in an unbalanced team". Where's the proof that EVERY player and group cares?

You don't need to be competitive to see how that is a serious issue.
But you have to be competitive to care.

The player is essentially useless in combat, which means they aren't engaged, and not having fun.
Okay. You've experienced it firsthand. Maybe even more then once. Doesn't mean that it's an absolute truth that every player will care. I've seen groups that didn't care, which makes your statement untrue. Because you are essentially saying that balance is a great issue for everyone because everyone cares.

If all the members are not contributing in a meaningful manner, it causes serious issues. You can't just handwave that away by saying
Not in your group. Not in most groups. True. But in some groups I can.

I would much rather play a cooperative game with someone of a roughly equal skill level than someone significantly better or worse than me. I don't want to outshine people, and I don't want to be outshone.
your way isn't the Only True Way.

Its a great moment where you accomplish something as a result of your teamwork.
Everyone in the team being equal isn't necessary for teamwork.

Just because some groups can function despite these flaws in the system does not mitigate the issue. You are pretty much saying "I don't care about this, so you are all wrong about considering this an issue".
Err. No, I didn't say that.

just because some people don't care if they suck at an activity does not make it a good idea, or even an acceptable idea, to design a system where some classes are gods and other suck.
Didn't say that either.

I think I'm done talking. You persist in your argument that everyone is competitive. I say that not everyone is and that the game assumes that you shouldn't be. It goes nowhere, so I'm going to do myself a favor and stop wasting my and your time. Bye.

georgie_leech

2012-01-28, 07:17 AM

Everyone in the team being equal isn't necessary for teamwork.

Equality is unecessary, but helpful in creating the necessity for team work. If every character has strengths and weaknesses, then they can work together to maximise the former and minimize the later. Instead, we have a system where the full-casters can do everything the others can, with fewer (if any) weaknesses. What's the point of a rogue's stealth and mobility when a 7 wizard can cast Greater Invisibility and Fly, in the same round with a single feat? Why play a paladin when a cleric's spells can make you just as good a front-liner while being able to command the weather itself to do their bidding? What's the point of a barbarian's greater strength and toughness for a minute or two when a druid can shapeshift into a bear or ape (or at high levels, a Tyranosaurus) with no duration, all the while having one as a pet and the capacity to summon up another one for good measure?

D&D is suppossed to be a cooperative game, and it can be an excellent one. But the mechanics do not always emphasize this. That is why balance threads crop up, and class fixes are almost always a click away. It's an attempt to encourage that cooperation from a mechanical standpoint, to make the game system fit with what it claims to be.

Andreaz

2012-01-28, 08:00 AM

There's a rather aggravating misconception about what "cooperative play" and "balance" are.

Fact: In a cooperative game, people expect everyone to contribute to the play.
Corollary: People who contribute too much may be aggravated by people who don't contribute as much.
Corollary: People who contribute too little may feel undervalued by people who contribute more.

From here on I assume this is the case and will write with it in mind. If your players are happy in a situation where one character carries the others, then this discussion has no purpose.

One answer to avoid the aforementioned problems is guaranteeing that the multiple options available to the players should have similar effectiveness for the effort spent. This is known as Balance.

So, how do you measure balance? A good start is measuring "What they can Do."
After that, it's also useful to measure "How long they can keep Doing it."
And finally, "How hard, to the player, is Doing it?" (#2 and #3 are mostly modifiers to #1)

1) What they can Do
Each must be able to Do something, well and without help. Something they are truly competent at. Its scope should be large enough that the character doesn't drop useless in the first unexpected situation, but wide enough that the character can't do everything.

-If a character can't Do what he's supposed to Do without outside help, he's too weak.
-If a character can't Do a lot of things, competition away from his niche will be too common, making the character uninteresting to play through a too large part of the game
-If a character can Do too many things, he will aggravate other players, holding the spotlight through a too large part of the game.

2) How long they can keep Doing it
A character can't Do their things forever, or there's no challenge to their niches. A character should be able to Do their thing often, but without allowing it to go all-out all the time.

-If a character is done Doing its thing much earlier than the others, it will be uninteresting to play through a too large part of the game.
-If a character can Do its thing all the time without restraint, Doing its thing becomes a mindless effort, which is boring.

3) How hard, to the player, is Doing it?
Each character's Doing requires a level of planning and effort from the player. The more effort put into Doing something, the better that something must be Done.

-If Doing it is easy, there is little variance on the Doing itself, which is boring.
-If Doing it is hard, the effort is inflated, tiring the player before other players.

gkathellar

2012-01-28, 08:28 AM

D&D is a cooperative game, lol remember?

And it's kinda lame if you expect some players to cooperate more than others. Let me express the ancient truism: Cleric and Fighter are about to walk into a dragon's lair. Fighter says, "Okay, sticker-box, I need some buffs. Oh, and also you better keep some spells open to heal me later."

Cleric says, "Hey, it occurs to me that if I just buffed myself, I'd actually end up about as strong as you do through me buffing you."

Fighter says, "Yeah, but then you wouldn't be able to heal me."

"No no no," says Cleric, "I'm saying that if I buffed me instead of you, I could probably do the frontline fighting."

"And then we'd, uh, we'd share the healing?" says Fighter.

Cleric gives him a look. "Well, if you're not buffed you're going to get smashed way faster than I could heal you, so maybe you should, uh ..."

"You want me to stand in the back."

"Well it's not like you're going to be doing anything useful if you're not buffed anyway, and besides, my god grants me some really great self-only buffs that are just going to wa—"

"It's your job to stand in the back!" Fighter says. "You're the cleric!"

Cleric goes pale. "Oh yeah? Well aren't you supposed to be the fighter? Shouldn't you be better at fighting than 'the cleric?'"

"I am better at fighting than you! That's why I'm always on the front line!"

"No, you're better at fighting than me if I buff you, instead of buffing me!"

Just then, a grey-white dragon saunters out of the cave, looking irritated. "God, you guys are loud. Look, this is pretty obvious. Fighter, since Cleric effectively has a choice between making either you an effective front line combatant or himself and effective front line combatant, you basically don't exist."

"I exist!" Fighter pauses. "Also, white dragon!"

"Well, no, from a mechanical perspective you're basically one character. See, because Cleric only gets enough buffs to really give full coverage to one of you, he's basically making a choice between whether you're effective and he's effective — and whoever isn't effective isn't contributing. After that you're both effective in the same way, but since it can only be one of you at a time, and it all comes from him in the first place ... you don't exist." The dragon pauses. "And uh, no, not white dragon. Tome dragon, from Dragon Magazine #343. Wizard casting."

Cleric takes a breath. "Oh ****."

"I knew we shouldn't have given dragons their own magazines!" Fighter exclaims, and moments later he and his friends are transfigured into yappy dogs.

Dazed&Confused

2012-01-28, 08:33 AM

Gnaeus

2012-01-28, 08:40 AM

Err, I don't think that we use the same definition of "competitive" and "cooperative".
In a competition everyone is out for himself. You want to win so you think about yourself. That's what you're talking about and that's how many people think when they play D&D. "The classes/characters must be balanced because I won't help my weaker teammate, it's not fun to help" or "The classes/characters must be balanced because the weaker classes will definitely have no fun". You apparently don't believe that there are people that don't care. Every time I say "Hey, but some people don't care, is all I'm saying" you go and repeat "Everybody doesn't like to be overshadowed, everybody will definitely have no fun in an unbalanced team". Where's the proof that EVERY player and group cares?

But you have to be competitive to care.

Okay. You've experienced it firsthand. Maybe even more then once. Doesn't mean that it's an absolute truth that every player will care. I've seen groups that didn't care, which makes your statement untrue. Because you are essentially saying that balance is a great issue for everyone because everyone cares.

Not in your group. Not in most groups. True. But in some groups I can.

Everyone in the team being equal isn't necessary for teamwork.

I think I'm done talking. You persist in your argument that everyone is competitive. I say that not everyone is and that the game assumes that you shouldn't be. It goes nowhere, so I'm going to do myself a favor and stop wasting my and your time. Bye.

There are a couple of real problems here, and they are being kind of blended together which makes the discussion difficult.

1. D&D is not necessarily a cooperative game. Certainly it can be, but PCs can have goals, alignments that are actually in opposition to each other. This is no better or worse than the games where everyone is in a seamless team. If it was ONLY a cooperative game, it would be a tactical game, not role-playing. In real life and in fantasy fiction peoples goals will sometimes diverge.

2. There are real suspension of disbelief issues involved in a party with a large enough disparity of power. We talked about role-play vs roll-play earlier in the thread, in the context that it doesn't matter who is more powerful, because everyone can role play. But large enough power imbalance can disrupt both. When the wizard and the cleric have an in character talk and they agree that they need to go fight the balor, but their mutual friend the monk will only be dragging them down and needlessly risking his life for no value, and he needs to go protect some villages from giants while they save the world, that is role playing. Saying "we are bringing the monk with us despite the fact that he is useless and dies all the time because we can carry him and because his player Bob brings the cheetos and we like Bob" is straight up metagaming. Yes, it is the opposite of role-playing. Now, it is friendly metagaming, and it is better than being mean to your friend, but it would be solved better if his character could pull his weight.

3. The biggest problem, IMO, is not Balance, it is Forseeability. If you know you are playing BMX bandit next to angel summoner, and you think that sounds like fun, and you want to play BMX Bandit anyway, thats awesome. Do it. Have a blast. If you think that you are playing Achilles (fighter) or Bruce Lee (Monk) and that you will be a hero who overcomes his mundane nature to be the equal of wizards and demons, and then you find out that you are not even close to your teammates in power, you are likely to be disappointed and your roleplay will suffer.

Lets face it, if you are a mighty fighter, and the champion of the enemy army steps out and demands a one on one fight with your mightiest hero for the fate of the nation, and you stand up, ready for your moment of glory, and the ClericorDruidorWizard says "Hang on buddy, this is important, you better let me handle this" and you know that in fact after 12 seconds of chanting they are a better fighter than you, that blows. Hard.

erikun

2012-01-28, 10:54 AM

As for WBL not being recommended, it is. There are two separate charts in the DMG. One reads WBL for creating new characters, and the other shows wealth gain by active characters per level. You can pretend what you want, but PCs are created with appropriate WBL for their level and the DM decision.

Page 42 and 199 of the DMG both disagree.
Yeah, thanks for the correction. I guess I should just sleep on it rather than posting late at night.

Flickerdart

2012-01-28, 11:08 AM

Surrealistik

2012-01-28, 11:16 AM

I agree with the rest of the posters. Balanced =/= equal, or the same. That is one thing 4e did wrong, they achieved balance through homogeneity and lack of flexibility, which is the wrong way to do it.

It honestly agitates me when I see this, especially from people who have probably never played 4e. The vast majority of classes play completely differently from each other; you most certainly would not play the wizard like a fighter. Even within classes, different builds play completely differently.

Dazed&Confused

2012-01-28, 11:22 AM

You could have, with the same amount of effort, buffed a peasant you found in the wild on your way to the adventure. Does that make the peasant a viable character class choice? No, it does not.

I didn't mean it made the fighter a good class, I meant the player was able to have fun while being a fighter. So there was no need of homebrewing or houseruling anything.

Anyway, I'm all in favor of changes for balance, as long as they're not based on nerfs, but buffs. haha

Mystify

2012-01-28, 12:28 PM

It honestly agitates me when I see this, especially from people who have probably never played 4e. The vast majority of classes play completely differently from each other; you most certainly would not play the wizard like a fighter. Even within classes, different builds play completely differently.

I actually play 4e at least once a weak, often twice. I've played rogues, vampires, barbarians, sorcerers, wizards, fighters, paladins, and wardens. Sure, there are nominal differences. But they don't feel that different. I never feel like I am making a character, I feel like I am selecting a presanctioned build.
I will often spend hours making 3.5 characters of every description, satisfying all sorts of criteria, which have vastly different abilities, and acheive vastly different things.
I try making 4e builds, and I get bored halfway through. You select a class, and now your freedom to customize it is in a stranglehold. most feats are generic and bland, it is nearly impossible to focus on a character concept. I tried a very basic one: A lightning sorcerer. And while it is doable, it is just barely doable, and it doesn't work well. I cannot come up with an arbitrary character concept in 4e and then play it. They stripped out the vast majority of the flexibility in the system.
Everything using the same mechanics really hurts the characters. You don't feel like you are some awesome fighter, you feel like you are defined by this arbitrary set of abilities. Many of them don't even seem to correspond to doing anything specific. "I create a zone around me, and when enemies leave, they fall prone". Ok... and why?
Then they go and do silly things, like have troll minions. I was in agroup of level 2s, and we fought a group of trolls. There was about 6 of them, which we could handle because 5 of them were minions who incinerated if you brought a flame near them. That is not right, trolls are supposed to be tough, scary monsters, and a group of level 2s should think twice before tangling with a single troll, not take on a group of them.
When you actually get down to how a battle plays out, its good. Its tactical and dynamic, and makes for interesting combat. At least at low levels. However, everything surrounding it is worse. The character creation sucks, the skill challenges are a step in the wrong direction. Oh, I could go on about the stupid skill challenges. Moving between encounters often feels wholly artificial, healing surges are a really bizarre mechanic that does little to enamor me to long-term play. The dailies create serious nova issues, battles are balanced very asymmetrically, and everything feels artificial.

Starbuck_II

2012-01-28, 12:56 PM

Then they go and do silly things, like have troll minions. I was in agroup of level 2s, and we fought a group of trolls. There was about 6 of them, which we could handle because 5 of them were minions who incinerated if you brought a flame near them. That is not right, trolls are supposed to be tough, scary monsters, and a group of level 2s should think twice before tangling with a single troll, not take on a group of them.

Trolls have always been fire = pushover.

Trolls are only strong vs non-fire. Plus, the DM made troll minions to fight, not the Monster manual.

Mystify

2012-01-28, 01:22 PM

Trolls have always been fire = pushover.

Trolls are only strong vs non-fire. Plus, the DM made troll minions to fight, not the Monster manual.
Fire has always been necessary to counter their regeneration, but they have never been pushovers with it. Esp. in 3.5, where you had to deal all of the damage as fire damage to completely kill them and have them stay dead. Poking them once with a burning rag didn't kill them.

The adventure modual made troll minions.

Hiro Protagonest

2012-01-28, 01:29 PM

Fire has always been necessary to counter their regeneration, but they have never been pushovers with it. Esp. in 3.5, where you had to deal all of the damage as fire damage to completely kill them and have them stay dead. Poking them once with a burning rag didn't kill them.

You just have to get them to -10 HP or less then poke them with a torch.

jaybird

2012-01-28, 01:37 PM

Haven't read the whole thread, but I don't think pure fighters would be useless in combat, even in high levels, as long as it's not a high op game or something. It's quite simple: just buff him... In my last game we had 2 wizards, 1 cleric and 1 druid, still the fighter was the one dealing the most damage and being untouchable, to the point of bothering the DM. We just buffed him a lot. I think it's a better alternative than trying to homebrew classes or go around nerfing stuff.

Let me put it this way...instead of, say, buffing the Fighter as well as one of Druid or Cleric, you could buff the Druid AND the Cleric, or buff the Druid's Animal Companion as well as one of Druid or Cleric. Would that change the results of your combat at all? Probably not...

Yes, D&D is a cooperative game, and the PCs are expected to work together. There is, however, a difference between two straight A students and a student straddling As and Bs working on a group presentation and two straight A students and a student barely scraping Ds working on a group presentation, even though that's also supposed to be cooperative.

Mystify

2012-01-28, 01:42 PM

You just have to get them to -10 HP or less then poke them with a torch.
Yes, but you still have to get through their troll hp. Its not "I tied a burning rag onto the end of my spear, so I can jab you and you will die since you are a 1hp minion".

Let me put it this way...instead of, say, buffing the Fighter as well as one of Druid or Cleric, you could buff the Druid AND the Cleric, or buff the Druid's Animal Companion as well as one of Druid or Cleric. Would that change the results of your combat at all? Probably not...

Yes, D&D is a cooperative game, and the PCs are expected to work together. There is, however, a difference between two straight A students and a student straddling As and Bs working on a group presentation and two straight A students and a student barely scraping Ds working on a group presentation, even though that's also supposed to be cooperative.
Except the cleric and druid are better at buffing themselves than the fighter, and the animal companion shares the druid's buffs.

Dazed&Confused

2012-01-28, 01:55 PM

Let me put it this way...instead of, say, buffing the Fighter as well as one of Druid or Cleric, you could buff the Druid AND the Cleric, or buff the Druid's Animal Companion as well as one of Druid or Cleric. Would that change the results of your combat at all? Probably not...

Yes, D&D is a cooperative game, and the PCs are expected to work together. There is, however, a difference between two straight A students and a student straddling As and Bs working on a group presentation and two straight A students and a student barely scraping Ds working on a group presentation, even though that's also supposed to be cooperative.

I repeat, that wasn't my point. My point was the pure fighter(ok, he wasn't so pure) was having fun playing his character, without having the need of other classes getting nerfed. Never wanted to say he was at the same level as the casters in power, just that he wasn't being useless in the fights, so, repeat, he was having fun and no one needed to nerf classes.

Surrealistik

2012-01-28, 02:01 PM

I actually play 4e at least once a weak, often twice. I've played rogues, vampires, barbarians, sorcerers, wizards, fighters, paladins, and wardens. Sure, there are nominal differences. But they don't feel that different. I never feel like I am making a character, I feel like I am selecting a presanctioned build.

The differences between a wizard and fighter in 4e aren't 'nominal'. At all. The differences between a pyromancer wizard, an enchanter wizard and an illusionist wizard are likewise notable. The difference between a cunning sneak sniper rogue and a brutal scoundrel thug is absolutely tangible. In summary, you're either exaggerating to the point of straight up fallacy or you haven't played 4e.

As far as feats go, beyond the tax feats which I agree are a problem, but which also existed in 3.5, there are actually many flavourful ones that do interesting things. You must also understand that the impact of individual feats by necessity must be diminished since you get more of them.

Lastly, the flavour/rationale of powers is either described in the flavour text, or is pretty easy to invent. Personally, I have a lot of fun coming up with in-character explanations as to how my powers actually work. A lack of player inventiveness when the flavour text rarely falls short is not an issue.

Lack of flexibility when it comes to designing a character can be a problem but only for the poorly supported classes. The rogue, wizard, cleric, fighter and the like all have a lot of intraclass flexibility and options that allow for a wide variety of theme builds.

As for trolls always having to be big scary monsters, that's not always true. Strength is relative. I can easily see trolls as being minions, either vs a higher level party, or as immature younger ones. Furthermore, it's the fault of the individual module designer or DM to cast creatures inappropriately as minions. If someone decides to cast Tharizdun, as in the final boss of DnD as a minion, that's not a strike against 4e, that's a strike (in all probability) against that person as a DM, or the module designer.

Mystify

2012-01-28, 02:21 PM

The differences between a wizard and fighter in 4e isn't 'nominal'. At all. The difference between a pyromancer wizard, an enchanter wizard and an illusionist wizard is likewise notable. The difference between a cunning sneak sniper rogue and a brutal scoundrel thug is absolutely tangible. In summary, you're either exaggerating to the point of straight up fallacy or you haven't played 4e.

And those are all pre-sanctioned options they provided. Try to make a character concept they haven't explicitly provided an option for. I could make a 3.5 character that killed things with bananas. I have a hard time making a 4e character that kills things with lightning.

And being a caster doesn't feel that different from being a martial character.
Oh, sure, I have a "lightning bolt" that hurts somebody and I can ping somebody near them for some damage. But the warden is creating zones of rippling earth, the ranger is hitting two targets for massive damage, and the rune priest just gave everybody a truckload of temp hp. The sorcerer feels like the least magical person around. There is not mechanical difference from using spells or swinging swords. We are all using at wills, encounters, and dailies. Why would the mage be operating under the precise same system as the fighter?

As far as feats go, beyond the tax feats which I agree are a problem, but which also existed in 3.5, there are actually many flavourful ones that do interesting things. You must also understand that the impact of individual feats by necessity must be diminished since you get more of them.

Lastly, the flavour/rationale of powers is either described in the flavour text, or is pretty easy to invent. Personally, I have a lot of fun coming up with in-character explanations as to how my powers actually work. A lack of player inventiveness when the flavour text rarely falls short is not an issue.

The system has no connect with reality. Even with the divide into magic. In 3.5, levels 1-5 are actually a pretty decent approximation of realism. Level 5 is olympic level, and everything below that is fairly reasonable. I've seen detailed mathematical analysis, comparing everything from the logistics of the village blacksmith to the ease of breaking down doors, to the survivability of falls.
4e doesn't even have a semblance of that. What does a mark represent? Oh, I marked that creature, so even though he is now 5 squares away, he has a harder time hitting my ally. What is a healing surge? Magical healing just suddenly stops working on you? It feels less like a bunch of characters using flavorful abilities and more like a bunch of video game characters invoking abstract effects. If I want a video game, I would play a video game.

As for trolls always having to be big scary monsters, that's not always true. Strength is relative. I can easily see trolls as being minions, either vs a higher level party, or as immature younger ones. Furthermore, it's the fault of the individual module designer or DM to cast creatures inappropriately as minions. If someone decides Tharizdun as in the final boss of DnD a minion, that's not a strike against 4e, that's a strike (in all probability) against that person as a DM, or the module designer.
In general, the system seems to be rather keen at taking these huge, scary monsters, and then providing little level 2 and 3 mini-versions that low level characters can fight. Perhaps its a problem with the DM or modules, but the system was still designed to let you scale them down in the first place.

Coidzor

2012-01-28, 03:28 PM

You must also understand that the impact of individual feats by necessity must be diminished since you get more of them.

That is, however, an idea entirely separate from nerfing the individual feats.

Surrealistik

2012-01-28, 03:54 PM

And those are all pre-sanctioned options they provided. Try to make a character concept they haven't explicitly provided an option for. I could make a 3.5 character that killed things with bananas. I have a hard time making a 4e character that kills things with lightning.

Sure you can. There are ways to optimize around improvised weaponry, which a banana could conceivably be. Granted, your character will almost certainly underperform vis a vis people with proper builds, but that'd probably be the case in most other systems in which you're silly or crazy enough to kill stuff with simple fruit.

And properly built lightning mages can be absolutely killer. It's actually pretty hard to build a gimp character that can't meaningfully contribute in 4e versus 3.5, at least so long as you avoid hybridizing.

Further, a 'sniper' isn't a pre-sanctioned option. Nor is a cold themed or lightning themed wizard, or a charge specced fighter, but they're all extremely viable, and the support for them is there.

And being a caster doesn't feel that different from being a martial character.
Oh, sure, I have a "lightning bolt" that hurts somebody and I can ping somebody near them for some damage. But the warden is creating zones of rippling earth, the ranger is hitting two targets for massive damage, and the rune priest just gave everybody a truckload of temp hp. The sorcerer feels like the least magical person around. There is not mechanical difference from using spells or swinging swords. We are all using at wills, encounters, and dailies. Why would the mage be operating under the precise same system as the fighter?

What's wrong with them using the same basic system if it works? And 4e's core combat system does work. Fun, balanced combat is something it does exceptionally well, and better than the vast majority of table top games.

That said, there _are_ substantive mechanical differences between the sorcerer's spells and the fighter's maneuvers. The fighter typically has less range, attacks individual enemies, targets AC and tends to feature controlling effects that limit options and movement. The sorcerer tends to target NADs, features AoE effects or multi-targets, has far more range, and a gamut of effects from extra damage to control to zones. That said, the least magical feeling characters definitely are the martial classes, particularly the melee heavy ones.

The system has no connect with reality. Even with the divide into magic. In 3.5, levels 1-5 are actually a pretty decent approximation of realism. Level 5 is olympic level, and everything below that is fairly reasonable. I've seen detailed mathematical analysis, comparing everything from the logistics of the village blacksmith to the ease of breaking down doors, to the survivability of falls.

For a very small window, 3.5 has, at best, some tenuous semblance of realism (and it is very tenuous). For those parts of 4e that feature less realism, it generally works to improve the funfactor of the game. Even so, 4e retains a very strong sense of verisimilitude, and in general these compromises of realism are made for good reasons.

4e doesn't even have a semblance of that. What does a mark represent? Oh, I marked that creature, so even though he is now 5 squares away, he has a harder time hitting my ally. What is a healing surge? Magical healing just suddenly stops working on you? It feels less like a bunch of characters using flavorful abilities and more like a bunch of video game characters invoking abstract effects. If I want a video game, I would play a video game.

Marks represent taunts, challenges, curses/hexes, distractions, and the like that would distract from targets that aren't the marker. This is often detailed in the accompanying flavour text of a power. Healing surges are representative of stamina and physical endurance. It's not hard to see the underlying logic and concepts represented by the majority of 4e mechanics.

In general, the system seems to be rather keen at taking these huge, scary monsters, and then providing little level 2 and 3 mini-versions that low level characters can fight. Perhaps its a problem with the DM or modules, but the system was still designed to let you scale them down in the first place.

It's never the system, always the module/mob designer when it comes to miscasting. TBH, nonsensical minions/monster levels are actually a pretty rare thing in my experience. There may be some standout cases, but on the whole the official mobs are pretty sensibly cast.

Mystify

2012-01-28, 04:29 PM

Sure you can. There are ways to optimize around improvised weaponry, which a banana could conceivably be. Granted, your character will almost certainly underperform vis a vis people with proper builds, but that'd probably be the case in most other systems in which you're silly or crazy enough to kill stuff with simple fruit.

And properly built lightning mages can be absolutely killer. It's actually pretty hard to build a gimp character that can't meaningfully contribute in 4e versus 3.5, at least so long as you avoid hybridizing.

Further, a 'sniper' isn't a pre-sanctioned option. Nor is a cold themed or lightning themed wizard, or a charge specced fighter, but they're all extremely viable, and the support for them is there.

What's wrong with them using the same basic system if it works? And 4e's core combat system does work. Fun, balanced combat is something it does exceptionally well, and better than the vast majority of table top games.

That said, there _are_ substantive mechanical differences between the sorcerer's spells and the fighter's maneuvers. The fighter typically has less range, attacks individual enemies, targets AC and tends to feature controlling effects that limit options and movement. The sorcerer tends to target NADs, features AoE effects or multi-targets, has far more range, and a gamut of effects from extra damage to control to zones. That said, the least magical feeling characters definitely are the martial classes, particularly the melee heavy ones.

And 99% of the effects feel like arbitrary collections of abilities rather than specific things. "Oh, lets give them a knockdown and stunning effect " "lets make these guys form an area of imbeded vision" "lets make these guys turn invisible after attacking". Its more like the enemies have arbitrary sets of status effects than actual actions.

For very small window, 3.5 has, at best, some tenuous semblance of realism (and it is very tenuous). For those parts of 4e that feature less realism, it generally works to improve the funfactor of the game. Even so, 4e retains a very strong sense of verisimilitude, and in general these compromises of realism are made for good reasons.

Generally, 3.5 has abilites that directly relate to a specific action. I sunder a sheild, I bull rush an enemy, I jump over the gap. 4e tends to be more "I create a zone" and "I give my allies bonuses by including them in my breath weapon area" and " I hit them is such a way that they will be knocked prone, stand up, try to move, and fall overagain". It feels more like a collection of arbitrary effects than actually performing actions.

Marks represent taunts, challenges, curses/hexes, distractions, and the like that would distract from targets that aren't the marker. This is often detailed in the accompanying flavour text of a power. Healing surges are representative of stamina and physical endurance. It's not hard to see the underlying logic and concepts represented by the majority of 4e mechanics.

its a mechanic absracted to the level of being contextless. Because its presented at that level, it is the level its used. The defenders say "I mark these guys", and its just some abstract status. Most of the mechanics feel like that. Sure, there is some underlying logic, but its far removed from the actual gameplay.
Same thing with skill challenges. Instead of each skill being used to work towards a goal, and accomplish something specific, interacting with the world in an organic and realistic way, you have this horrible abstraction of a skill challenge. Your skill isn't accomplishing something concrete, it is racking up successes and failures, which meets some arbitrary magic number of each, has some potentially unrelated outcome.

It's never the system, always the module/mob designer when it comes to miscasting. TBH, nonsensical minions/monster levels are actually a pretty rare thing in my experience. There may be some standout cases, but on the whole the official mobs are pretty sensibly cast.
My DM specifically gushed at me once about how great it was that he could scale down any enemy to be an appropriate challenge for the group. Thats not a good thing.

Don't get me wrong. I like how the actual combat runs. Its tactical and interesting. But I feel extremely constrained when trying to make a character do what I want it to, everything outside of combat feels extremely artificial, and it looses its connection with basic actions. Actually doing a battle is fine, but pretty much everything else about the system repulses me.

absolmorph

2012-01-28, 04:41 PM

My DM specifically gushed at me once about how great it was that he could scale down any enemy to be an appropriate challenge for the group. Thats not a good thing.
I'm going to leave the rest of that post for other people, but this caught my eye.
Why isn't that a good thing? Why can't monsters of a single type (i.e. troll) be reasonable encounters for any level? Keep in mind that if you can scale a monster down, you can also scale it up, so you can conceivably face a troll as a higher-than-normal level party and still have it be a terrifying opponent.

Mystify

2012-01-28, 04:45 PM

Hiro Protagonest

2012-01-28, 04:58 PM

This is a problem with the DM, not the game. In 3.5, you could easily just take a human, make it large, give it -2 to intelligence and no extra skill points, give it +2 to strength, a bonus when using thrown weapons, change the creature type to "giant", give it two racial hit dice, and call it a CR 1 hill giant.

gkathellar

2012-01-28, 05:00 PM

Because then you lose all sense of relative power. Its similar to the problem oblivion had; all the enemies scaled with you, which severally undercuts your progression.
If a level 1 character can handle a doom stormwraith because its been leveled down, it takes all impact from taking out a doom stormwraith when you are level 20. It also creates bizaar inconsistancies where the level 2 group could take on a bunch of storm giants, but the level 10 group is having a hard time with a group of bears. All relative sense of threat from the enemies is lost. Should you be able to fight a Balor at level 1? No. Its a huge powerful, CR 20 demon, and hence should only be fought by high level, powerful characters. Scaling it down is not a good thing.

Right, so you wouldn't run that type of campaign. But some DMs might want to, and that's what encounter scaling offers — versatility for the DM. What "high level" means has the potential to vary drastically between campaigns, which is why 4E and some other games (Fantasy Craft and many lower-complexity games like Wushu or FATE come to mind) embrace the idea of scaling mechanics. Generally, they associate higher levels with grandiosity and impressiveness, rather than with X creature, Y encounter structure or Z threat. It's not an objectively bad approach, even if you dislike it.

Most of your complaints basically come down to this: disassociated mechanics. That's a standard complaint about 4E, and it's not an unfair one, but many people don't notice it, or don't care about it in the slightest. I, for one, still don't see it. Who seriously cares if 3.5's fireball spell has two and a half more sentences of flavor text and is more difficult to read?

You can't prove that Legend or 4E or 3.5 or 2E or 1E or Basic are bad wrongfun. You can make observations about what attributes the games objectively have, and express that you do or don't like certain attributes. But those attributes can only be judged as good or bad relative to the degree that they do or don't demonstrate competence and respect from the design team.

NNescio

2012-01-28, 05:02 PM

On a tangential note:

You can't prove that Legend or 4E or 3.5 or 2E or 1E or Basic are bad wrongfun. You can make observations about what attributes the games objectively have, and express that you do or don't like certain attributes. But those attributes can only be judged as good or bad relative to the degree that they do or don't demonstrate competence and respect from the design team.

FATAL is bad wrongfun. How do I prove it?

Mystify

2012-01-28, 05:04 PM

You can't prove that Legend or 4E or 3.5 or 2E or 1E or Basic are bad wrongfun. You can make observations about what attributes the games objectively have, and express that you do or don't like certain attributes. But those attributes can only be judged as good or bad relative to the degree that they do or don't demonstrate competence and respect from the design team.
No, but I complain about those attributes I dislike and not want them added to a new system, and if they are added I may find them highly objectionable. I'm currently highly fed up with D&D since, depending on version, its either highly inflexible or highly unbalanced. Which is part of why I like legand, it seems to be relatively well-balanced and flexible.

Curious

2012-01-28, 05:05 PM

-Snip-

I think what it basically boils down to is how much you are willing to compromise verisimilitude for balance. 3.x isn't a terribly simulationist game, but it has enough of the trappings that you can at least pretend to be inside a living world. You really can't with 4e. I suppose it comes down to personal preference.

gkathellar

2012-01-28, 05:08 PM

FATAL is bad wrongfun. How do I prove it?

Significant portions of the book demonstrate a disrespectful, distasteful, corrosive, incompetent and often blatantly cruel and misogynist attitude on the part of the design team. You'll notice I included a clause for that.

I think what it basically boils down to is how much you are willing to compromise verisimilitude for balance. 3.x isn't a terribly simulationist game, but it has enough of the trappings that you can at least pretend to be inside a living world. You really can't with 4e. I suppose it comes down to personal preference.

Emphasis mine. I've never had a problem with that in my experience with 4E. I'm perfectly willing to accept abstractions as abstractions, perhaps beyond the point that some people are, but that's my preference just as the opposite is theirs.

Coidzor

2012-01-28, 05:10 PM

FATAL Tangent: Well, FATAL is handled by being so cumbersome and opaque that you can't learn it and can't have fun playing it in the first place to have badwrongfun. The closest people could get would be to take on the role of basement trolls and proceed to begin giggling about the rape content and silly magic item descriptions.

4e Tangent:
It honestly agitates me when I see this, especially from people who have probably never played 4e. The vast majority of classes play completely differently from each other; you most certainly would not play the wizard like a fighter. Even within classes, different builds play completely differently.

Tried it, found it unappealing, didn't like it on the whole, didn't do it again.

Curious

2012-01-28, 05:17 PM

Emphasis mine. I've never had a problem with that in my experience with 4E. I'm perfectly willing to accept abstractions as abstractions, perhaps beyond the point that some people are, but that's my preference just as the opposite is theirs.

You're mixing up abstraction with dissociation. An abstraction is something like a to-hit roll. You know what it represents, but you aren't going into more detail because it wouldn't really add anything other than unnecessary confusion. Disassociation is where the mechanics of the game simply don't match up to the fluff. Like a fire-cube, or marks. Or skill challenges. Or healing surges.

Siegel

2012-01-28, 05:22 PM

Our classes are cooler.
Our classes are better balanced.
We have weremummy robots about to be released.

Thesis: Crushed.

You still do a generic D20 system so my interested is still not given

Mystify

2012-01-28, 05:22 PM

gkathellar

2012-01-28, 05:33 PM

You're mixing up abstraction with dissociation. An abstraction is something like a to-hit roll. You know what it represents, but you aren't going into more detail because it wouldn't really add anything other than unnecessary confusion. Disassociation is where the mechanics of the game simply don't match up to the fluff. Like a fire-cube, or marks. Or skill challenges. Or healing surges.

And you're mixing up "can be so" and "is so." You're not wrong to say the mechanics feel disassociated to you, but you are wrong to say they must feel that way to everybody.

I (and I suspect the great majority of people who played 4E without objections) never had problems with seeing those things as anything other than abstractions. If they feel dissociated to you, that's fine. As far as I'm concerned, marks are having your opponent caught up in your rhythm and attention, a skill challenge amounts to a series of skill checks to accomplish things, healing surges account for your overall ability to keep going before no amount of healing or inspiration can keep you on your feet, and the fire cube doesn't bother me any more than the 5-foot-squares system that's been around since 3.5 does in general.

Mystify

2012-01-28, 05:38 PM

a skill challenge amounts to a series of skill checks to accomplish things
But they aren't. The skill challenges remove the cause/effect relationship. Its taking what was a perfectly good role-playing opportunity and turning it into a dry, mechanical system that makes no sense. What was wrong with how 3.5 did skills?

Surrealistik

2012-01-28, 05:40 PM

Disassociation is where the mechanics of the game simply don't match up to the fluff. Like a fire-cube, or marks. Or skill challenges. Or healing surges.

Like none of those things, fire cubes excepted, but that's an example of sacrificing realism for expediency, fun and speed. Every other one of those things is very obviously an abstraction of readily understood concepts. There are exceedingly few powers that are truly arbitrary and have no satisfactory fluff explanation at all, or otherwise lack verisimilitude.

I will grant that skill challenges could be better (I find that unmodified and played totally straight they are a weakness of the system, and mainly because they tend not to be fun), but that said, dissociation doesn't exist even there; each (well-written) skill challenge generally illustrates how a certain skill is used or requires a player to demonstrate how their skill is used to further the goal.

Curious

2012-01-28, 05:48 PM

Mystify

2012-01-28, 05:48 PM

Like none of those things, fire cubes excepted, but that's an example of sacrificing realism for expediency, fun and speed. Every other one of those things is very obviously an abstraction of readily understood concepts. There are exceedingly few powers that are truly arbitrary and have no satisfactory fluff explanation at all, or otherwise lack verisimilitude.

I will grant that skill challenges could be better (I find that unmodified and played totally straight they are a weakness of the system, and mainly because they tend not to be fun), but that said, dissociation doesn't exist even there; each (well-written) skill challenge generally illustrates how a certain skill is used or requires a player to demonstrate how their skill is used to further the goal.
But "you need x successes before y failures" is a complete dissociation from everything. Some things don't innately have a penalty for failure, and the skill system doesn't care. You often get bonuses for doing a skill, even if it doesn't actually relate to what you are doing now. Other times what you accomplish with the skills is not terribly relevant to the actual outcome.
For instance, we had this giant barrier of spellplauge to get over. Instead of simply running through the scenario of how we deal with the barrier, figuring out how to get everyone past, it was a skill challenge, where we needed to get so many successes to get past it. We actually succeeded at the challenge before we got everyone over the barrier. And that was one of the better skill challenges I played with.
Skill challenges dissociate your actions from their cause and effect, and instead tries to lump the entire thing as one unit.

gkathellar

2012-01-28, 05:51 PM

But they aren't. The skill challenges remove the cause/effect relationship. Its taking what was a perfectly good role-playing opportunity and turning it into a dry, mechanical system that makes no sense.

It's exactly as dry and mechanical as you want it to be, just as skill checks have always been. A skill challenge can be laced with descriptions and roleplaying if you want it to be — or it can be dry and mechanical. I see no difference between this and 3.5's skill checks.

Now, they screwed up on the math for skill challenges, and that is actually bad. But conceptually, they're sound.

What was wrong with how 3.5 did skills?

A variety of off-topic things, none of which 4E changed. But just because something isn't bad (and 3.5's skill system wasn't) doesn't mean you can't have something different which also isn't bad.

Mystify

2012-01-28, 05:56 PM

It's exactly as dry and mechanical as you want it to be, just as skill checks have always been. A skill challenge can be laced with descriptions and roleplaying if you want it to be — or it can be dry and mechanical. I see no difference between this and 3.5's skill checks.

Now, they screwed up on the math for skill challenges, and that is actually bad. But conceptually, they're sound.

3.5s skill checks maintain cause and effect. 4e removes it. Its an unfun mechanic that destroys roleplaying.

A variety of off-topic things, none of which 4E changed. But just because something isn't bad (and 3.5's skill system wasn't) doesn't mean you can't have something different which also isn't bad.
Sure, but whats being offered is bad. Its not bad because its different, its bad because its a horrible mechanic, and hence they would have been better off keeping the old way.

Hiro Protagonest

2012-01-28, 06:00 PM

Healing surges are also disassociated; can you actually imagine how that works? After a certain point, you just don't benefit from magical healing any more? Considering that the fluff never specifies that people can suddenly stop being healed, that is also a disassociation.

Do you know how abstart HP is? It can represent wounds, fatigue, morale loss...

gkathellar

2012-01-28, 06:00 PM

3.5s skill checks maintain cause and effect. 4e removes it. Its an unfun mechanic that destroys roleplaying.

Sure, but whats being offered is bad. Its not bad because its different, its bad because its a horrible mechanic, and hence they would have been better off keeping the old way.

For you.

You keep presenting opinions as if they were facts, but stating them over and over again isn't going to suddenly transfigure the history of people who have had positive experiences with the same mechanics.

Mystify

2012-01-28, 06:02 PM

For you.

You keep presenting opinions as if they were facts, but stating them over and over again isn't going to suddenly transfigure the history of people who have had positive experiences with the same mechanics.

ok. Tell me how they are better.

gkathellar

2012-01-28, 06:08 PM

ok. Tell me how they are better.

I'm not saying they're better, or that they're worse. I have qualms with both (many of them shared). I like both in certain ways. But there's no necessary hierarchy, and you can't objectively prove the superiority of one over the other. One doesn't need to be superior, nor does one need to be inferior. They're two separate but related systems. They're different.

If you really want me to go into detail on my opinions of the diverse skill systems I've encountered in many different games, I'll PM you.

Surrealistik

2012-01-28, 06:11 PM

Scroll back up the thread a bit, find the discussion on marks that you were a part of. Yes, they are in fact, disassociated.

Completely satisfactory explanations were given as to the underlying logic beyond marks.

Healing surges are also disassociated; can you actually imagine how that works? After a certain point, you just don't benefit from magical healing any more? Considering that the fluff never specifies that people can suddenly stop being healed, that is also a disassociation.

Sure I can. Healing surges as a measure of stamina, physical endurance is demonstrative of your capacity and potential to recover from injury. Healing abilities (most of them) tap into that capacity and that potential as a catalyst. Once a character is pushed to his utmost limit and is completely without surges, healing magic has nothing to tap into and utilize; there is no remaining reserve of vitality and fortitude that it can catalyze into health. That said, healing powers that rely on surges still have some effect; they will bring you up to 1 HP if you're dying and stabilize you.

By the way, I have absolutely no problem exerting the little bit of doublethink required to get immersed in 4e. That no one can find the system immersive is just not true.

Mystify

2012-01-28, 06:18 PM

Completely satisfactory explanations were given as to the underlying logic beyond marks.

Sure I can. Healing surges as a measure of stamina, physical endurance is demonstrative of your capacity and potential to recover from injury. Healing abilities (most of them) tap into that capacity and that potential as a catalyst. Once a character is pushed to his utmost limit and is completely without surges, healing magic has nothing to tap into and utilize; there is no remaining reserve of vitality and fortitude that it can catalyze into health.
But that all magically refreshes after a good night's sleep, so you can be killed 10 times over again. Yes, that explanation makes perfect sense.
Not to mention it puts a hard limit on how long you can adventure in a day, instead of a soft limit. Using 3.5 as a reference point(not to imply it does it perfectly either), your healer, say the cleric, has a certain innate healing capacity per day. It is in competition with their spells in 3.5, but that doesn't need to be the case. This creates a period of adventuring that is comfortable, and you can easily provide all of the healing you need with it. Your capacity to heal increases as you level, but so does the need to heal.
after a certain point, your natural healing reserves are exhausted, and you must seek out external sources. Namely heal wands, in most campaigns. Burning through them has a direct impact on the parties wealth. You can keep pushing on, but there is a cost associated with it.

Curious

2012-01-28, 06:24 PM

Do you know how abstart HP is? It can represent wounds, fatigue, morale loss...

Yes. And? That's a good abstraction, since it reduces complexity. Sometimes it doesn't make a lot of sense, but that's pretty much always going to happen in a game as complex as d&d.

Completely satisfactory explanations were given as to the underlying logic beyond marks.

Uh, no, there weren't. You gave an explanation, and then Mystify promptly gave several examples as to why they don't make sense. I'll illustrate further with a classic; a paladin slaps a holy mark on an enemy, which is fluffed as his deity somehow inhibiting the enemies actions. Then, a fighter runs up and slaps a mark on the same creature, fluffing it as his fancy footwork distracting the creature. The paladin's mark disappears. Sooooo. . . The fighters footwork is fancy enough to utterly destroy the divine mark of a deity?

Sure I can. Healing surges as a measure of stamina, physical endurance is demonstrative of your capacity and potential to recover from injury. Healing abilities (most of them) tap into that capacity and that potential as a catalyst. Once a character is pushed to his utmost limit and is completely without surges, healing magic has nothing to tap into and utilize; there is no remaining reserve of vitality and fortitude that it can catalyze into health. That said, healing powers that rely on surges still have some effect; they will bring you up to 1 HP if you're dying and stabilize you.

By the way, I have absolutely no problem exerting the little bit of doublethink required to get immersed in 4e. That no one can find the system immersive is just not true.

So, if healing energy is entirely internal, why can only divine powers heal people? Why can't anyone do that?

The fact that you have to exercise such double-think in the first place is rather indicative of the 'immersiveness' present in 4e.

Doug Lampert

2012-01-28, 06:30 PM

the fire cube doesn't bother me any more than the 5-foot-squares system that's been around since 3.5 does in general.

I'll point out that three times in this sort of discussion I've seen someone on the internet ask what level of abstraction and round-off in distances is acceptable, since 3.5 uses 1.5==Sqrt(2) which is also incorrect.

EVERY time the people objecting to cubes have said, about 20%.

Great. That square is about 4'2" across the short side, and about 5'11" across the diagonal, and we're rounding off to 5' for both. No distance error greater than the 20% that's widely claimed to be acceptable.

I don't think the rules ever actually specify which direction accross the square is 5'. :smallwink:

It's too great an error because people want it to be too great an error. I defy anyone to seriously claim that distance estimates in battle will actually be better than 20%, and I can justify diagonals being the same distance as straight across with that level of error being declared acceptable.

Mystify

2012-01-28, 06:36 PM

I'll point out that three times in this sort of discussion I've seen someone on the internet ask what level of abstraction and round-off in distances is acceptable, since 3.5 uses 1.5==Sqrt(2) which is also incorrect.

EVERY time the people objecting to cubes have said, about 20%.

Great. That square is about 4'2" across the short side, and about 5'11" across the diagonal, and we're rounding off to 5' for both. No distance error greater than the 20% that's widely claimed to be acceptable.

I don't think the rules ever actually specify which direction accross the square is 5'. :smallwink:

It's too great an error because people want it to be too great an error. I defy anyone to seriously claim that distance estimates in battle will actually be better than 20%, and I can justify diagonals being the same distance as straight across with that level of error being declared acceptable.
I play a sorcerer with 10 square reach on most of my powers. The difference between attacking along a diagonal and attacking laterally is ridiculous. a cube works as an approximation at small scales, but the larger the radius, the more ridiculous it becomes. You can be 40% further away than the range says, and still hit because it is a diagonal. Its not a 20% error to do squares instead of circles, its a 40% error. You can't try to measure that halfway and declare it 20% on each side, and hence acceptable. 3.5 has a very simple rule, 1 -2-1-2-1-2. We learned to count like that in kindergarten, and it drastically improves the approximation.

Doug Lampert

2012-01-28, 06:37 PM

So, if healing energy is entirely internal, why can only divine powers heal people? Why can't anyone do that?

The fact that you have to exercise such double-think in the first place is rather indicative of the 'immersiveness' present in 4e.

HUH?!? Appearantly you're critisizing 3.x. Because in 4e divine powers are far from being the only ones able to heal.

3.x healing is actually healing wounds, that's what the spells are called, except it doesn't fit with the HP abstraction at all. It breaks completely. A 10 HP wound to a level 1 is a serious wound, but is fixed by a CLW. A 40 HP wound to a level 20 is a trivial scratch, and needs vastly more powerful healing magic. Appearantly healing gets harder as you level in 3.x.

I find 4e healing FAR less disassociated then 3.x healing which is broken right, left, and center. You have to TOTALLY throw out the HP abstraction for 3.x healing. Meanwhile 4e healing actually can be morale, luck, divine favor, or shear grit and they ALL WORK, and ALL provide healing mechanisms. Those mechanisms are all limited by the character's internal reserves, because they all draw on those reserves, there's nothing that says divine healing has to be completely without reliance on those reserves.

And a scratch at level 30 is actually a scratch and healed by the same healing word or inspiring word or majestic word that healed a scratch at level 1.

Doug Lampert

2012-01-28, 06:39 PM

I play a sorcerer with 10 square reach on most of my powers. The difference between attacking along a diagonal and attacking laterally is ridiculous. a cube works as an approximation at small scales, but the larger the radius, the more ridiculous it becomes. You can be 40% further away than the range says, and still hit because it is a diagonal. Its not a 20% error to do squares instead of circles, its a 40% error. You can't try to measure that halfway and declare it 20% on each side, and hence acceptable. 3.5 has a very simple rule, 1 -2-1-2-1-2. We learned to count like that in kindergarten, and it drastically improves the approximation.

No, it's 20% error. I can declare the short side whatever length I want and with a simple declaration it's 20% both ways. You shouldn't say I can't do that, I just did and posted the math.

Edit: And by the way, the distance has NOTHING to do with how relatively significant the difference is. So your objection being based on the range of the powers shows that it has NOTHING to do with the actual percent error. That's the same for melee attacks as for ranged. Your problem is that one of those errors is the SAME as in 3.5 which you've declared acceptable, and the other is BIGGER than in 3.5 so you declare that one unacceptable. But they are the same error percentage wise.

Curious

2012-01-28, 06:43 PM

HUH?!? Appearantly you're critisizing 3.x. Because in 4e divine powers are far from being the only ones able to heal.

3.x healing is actually healing wounds, that's what the spells are called, except it doesn't fit with the HP abstraction at all. It breaks completely. A 10 HP wound to a level 1 is a serious wound, but is fixed by a CLW. A 40 HP wound to a level 20 is a trivial scratch, and needs vastly more powerful healing magic. Appearantly healing gets harder as you level in 3.x.

I find 4e healing FAR less disassociated then 3.x healing which is broken right, left, and center. You have to TOTALLY throw out the HP abstraction for 3.x healing. Meanwhile 4e healing actually can be morale, luck, divine favor, or shear grit and they ALL WORK, and ALL provide healing mechanisms. Those mechanisms are all limited by the character's internal reserves, because they all draw on those reserves, there's nothing that says divine healing has to be completely without reliance on those reserves.

And a scratch at level 30 is actually a scratch and healed by the same healing word or inspiring word or majestic word that healed a scratch at level 1.

3.x works fine. You are tough. You get tougher. Lesser healing spells aren't powerful enough to make much of a difference anymore.

And it still doesn't change the fact that healing surges still don't really make sense. Because the way you say it, an inspiring word from a friend has the same effect as a spell infused with divine energy. And both, despite coming from outside sources, somehow drain your own energy to do so? So, words can use up your energy now?

Mystify

2012-01-28, 06:44 PM

No, it's 20% error. I can declare the short side whatever length I want and with a simple declaration it's 20% both ways. You shouldn't say I can't do that, I just did and posted the math.

Ok, let me phrase it this way:
The total error shouldn't be more than 20%. If you have 20% error in both directions, you still have 40% total error. Measuring the short distance, your error is all positive. Measuring the long distance, your error is all negative. Measuring it in the middle does not reduce the error, it just makes it straddle the line.

Doug Lampert

2012-01-28, 06:45 PM

3.x works fine. You are tough. You get tougher. Lesser healing spells aren't powerful enough to make much of a difference anymore.

But the abstraction is that the higher level guy ISN'T taking a sword blow that severs his arm and keeping fighting undaunted when he takes a 40 HP blow, his skill, divine favor, dodging, ext... have REDUCED the effect to a scratch.

That's the abstraction YOU HAVE ALREADY ACCEPTED when you use HP.

Then you reject it on healing.

And it still doesn't change the fact that healing surges still don't really make sense. Because the way you say it, an inspiring word from a friend has the same effect as a spell infused with divine energy. And both, despite coming from outside sources, somehow drain your own energy to do so? So, words can use up your energy now?

Niether raises your energy, they both allow you to tap your inner reserves. That's what people are saying.

Doug Lampert

2012-01-28, 06:48 PM

Ok, let me phrase it this way:
The total error shouldn't be more than 20%. If you have 20% error in both directions, you still have 40% total error. Measuring the short distance, your error is all positive. Measuring the long distance, your error is all negative. Measuring it in the middle does not reduce the error, it just makes it straddle the line.

What's the total error of which you speak? If a power has a range of 50' then the actual error if it goes only 42' or so along the short sides is less than 20%. You seem to be saying that the difference between the maximum value and the minimum value is somehow significant. But if so then D&D 3.x has already accepted this level of unacceptable error in melee ranges.

Curious

2012-01-28, 06:51 PM

But the abstraction is that the higher level guy ISN'T taking a sword blow that severs his arm and keeping fighting undaunted when he takes a 40 HP blow, his skill, divine favor, dodging, ext... have REDUCED the effect to a scratch.

That's the abstraction YOU HAVE ALREADY ACCEPTED when you use HP.

Then you reject it on healing.

You guys must be using a different abstraction. All my abstraction consists of is, 'these guys are really freaking tough. They can take sword blows to the face that would have killed them earlier.' That's it.

Niether raises your energy, they both allow you to tap your inner reserves. That's what people are saying.

So, why do you require outside help to access your own inner reserves then? It seems like they should have just done away with healing effects altogether and just let people decide on their own initiative when to get healed.

krossbow

2012-01-28, 07:00 PM

I'm going to leave the rest of that post for other people, but this caught my eye.
Why isn't that a good thing? Why can't monsters of a single type (i.e. troll) be reasonable encounters for any level? Keep in mind that if you can scale a monster down, you can also scale it up, so you can conceivably face a troll as a higher-than-normal level party and still have it be a terrifying opponent.

This a HUGE problem with immersion. Its much like how people will often find it annoying that bandits at the end of a video game will be stronger than demons faced earlier in the game simply because you need to have something that you don't tap and they die.

What people forget is that there is supposed to be a STORY behind each of those individuals; Why are they there? Is it logical for them to be there? How did they get their equipment and get to this position?
Its how, in OLDER systems of D&D the dungeon master manual who CONSTANTLY drill this into the DM's head to make sure they understood: You couldn't just grab a dragon and throw it into the dungeon with oozes and rust monsters-- These are living beings, certain monsters won't exist together in an ecosystem or work together, and intelligent monsters won't just be wandering around to pop up like a random encounter in a video game.

This is what i find ridiculous about dragons. Dragons are NOT stupid monsters that are common. They are beings with drives and motivations who are rare and will only be fighting heroes if there is a legitimate reason for them to be fighting them. An adult dragon is likewise NOT going to be mixing it up with a level 1 party without curbstomping them.

Surrealistik

2012-01-28, 07:46 PM

Uh, no, there weren't. You gave an explanation, and then Mystify promptly gave several examples as to why they don't make sense. I'll illustrate further with a classic; a paladin slaps a holy mark on an enemy, which is fluffed as his deity somehow inhibiting the enemies actions. Then, a fighter runs up and slaps a mark on the same creature, fluffing it as his fancy footwork distracting the creature. The paladin's mark disappears. Sooooo. . . The fighters footwork is fancy enough to utterly destroy the divine mark of a deity?

What examples? He just complained about it being too abstract/dissociative which is essentially the same argument he's proposed and I rejected given my own very specific examples.

Yes, marks negate other marks, which is necessary to prevent obvious and effortless Catch 22 abuse. Aside from that there's nothing wrong with the fluff associated with a mark at all.

So, if healing energy is entirely internal, why can only divine powers heal people? Why can't anyone do that?

Anyone can, actually; yes, mundane heal checks can allow players to spend healing surges.

The fact that you have to exercise such double-think in the first place is rather indicative of the 'immersiveness' present in 4e.

The same double-think is inherent in 3.5.

So, why do you require outside help to access your own inner reserves then? It seems like they should have just done away with healing effects altogether and just let people decide on their own initiative when to get healed.

You don't, at least up to a limit. The Second Wind mechanic represents exactly that, allowing you to spend a healing surge of your own accord.

Curious

2012-01-28, 08:21 PM

What examples? He just complained about it being too abstract/dissociative which is essentially the same argument he's proposed and I rejected given my own very specific examples.

Yes, marks negate other marks, which is necessary to prevent obvious and effortless Catch 22 abuse. Aside from that there's nothing wrong with the fluff associated with a mark at all.

So, your argument is that there is nothing wrong with the fluff of marks, as long as nobody touches anything that might make the fluff go wonky? That's the same logic that makes people say that 3.5 is balanced because nobody would actually use a wizard like they can be used.

As for HP, I'll just have to agree to disagree here.

Surrealistik

2012-01-28, 08:39 PM

So, your argument is that there is nothing wrong with the fluff of marks, as long as nobody touches anything that might make the fluff go wonky? That's the same logic that makes people say that 3.5 is balanced because nobody would actually use a wizard like they can be used.

I explicitly admitted that the fluff is compromised for the sake of balance in the event of overlapping marks; balance takes priority as per the founding principles of 4e given the direct conflict here. Mark replacement is an exception in an otherwise robust abstraction/fluffing of the mechanic. To admit a flaw in mark fluff, yet defend the overall concept as a solid, workable abstraction is not at all comparable to the kind of ridiculous intellectual dishonesty you've cited.

Curious

2012-01-28, 08:46 PM

I explicitly admitted that the fluff is compromised for the sake of balance in the event of overlapping marks; balance takes priority as per the founding principles of 4e given the direct conflict here. Mark replacement is an exception in an otherwise robust abstraction/fluffing of the mechanic. To admit a flaw in mark fluff, yet defend the overall concept as a solid, workable abstraction is not at all comparable to the kind of ridiculous intellectual dishonest you've cited.

You're mixing up abstraction with disassociation again; marks would be an abstraction if they were stackable, as would be logical, but since they do not, they are a disassociation, a mechanic that does not match fluff.

Surrealistik

2012-01-28, 09:23 PM

You're mixing up abstraction with disassociation again; marks would be an abstraction if they were stackable, as would be logical, but since they do not, they are a disassociation, a mechanic that does not match fluff.

I've never confused the two. A mostly workable abstraction is just that. Yes, there is the necessary fluff flaw that marks cannot stack, but it is beyond pedantic to assert that this alone makes it a 'disassociation'.

krossbow

2012-01-28, 10:51 PM

Hiro Protagonest

2012-01-28, 11:14 PM

However, besides that, something that irks me is the inability to cross class. That just seems really arbitrary. Why can't my fighter learn a few roguish tricks on the side? he's a very sneaky individual who used to work as a thief when he was a child, why is he unable to cross class except for arbitrary impositions?

Um... the basic multiclass rogue feat gives you training in a rogue skill, and sneak attack once per encounter. Then there's hybrid, a very easy to screw up system that should only be trusted in the hands of an experienced player, but gives you two classes.

Snowbluff

2012-01-28, 11:17 PM

AHEM

TIER3TIER3TIER3TIER3TIER3TIER3TIER3TIER3TIER3TIER3 TIER3TIER3TIER3!

It's not boring, use it!

Probably been swordsaged, but balance is attainable and playable.

DoctorGlock

2012-01-28, 11:21 PM

AHEM

TIER3TIER3TIER3TIER3TIER3TIER3TIER3TIER3TIER3TIER3 TIER3TIER3TIER3!

It's not boring, use it!

Probably been swordsaged, but balance is attainable and playable.

More importantly, diverse

beguilers and warblades, duskblades and binders, wildshape rangers and dread necros all play infinitely differently

TuggyNE

2012-01-28, 11:51 PM

I suppose it's too late to ask if we can stop the edition warring and get back to class balance flamage.... :smalltongue:

NNescio

2012-01-28, 11:58 PM

I suppose it's too late to ask if we can stop the edition warring and get back to class balance flamage.... :smalltongue:

http://ompldr.org/vMzRtMg/picture.php

http://ompldr.org/vOHk4MQ/tCp90.gif

onemorelurker

2012-01-29, 12:01 AM

Aw, c'mon, NNescio. The original fight was at least as much fun as the current one. :smalltongue:

Coidzor

2012-01-29, 12:05 AM

I suppose it's too late to ask if we can stop the edition warring and get back to class balance flamage.... :smalltongue:

If only there were some way we could bring in fromage too. :smallconfused::smallfrown:

onemorelurker

2012-01-29, 12:08 AM

If only there were some way we could bring in fromage too. :smallconfused::smallfrown:

Class balance and/or 4th edition is stinky cheese!

Doc Roc

2012-01-29, 12:28 AM

True, but even Fax who is generally agreed to have a fair bit of chops to 'em and isn't working completely alone has had to take a lot of time to do what he's done so far in regards to it. So it is a significant investment of time to DIY. Possibly less to tweak the work of those who have gone before, but then that opens up a new bit of difficulty I think, in finding good examples of that work.

Hmm... Now I'm wondering how long Legend took from idea to recruitment and then from recruitment to tackling the matte and then from tackling to first release.

About two and a half years. Two and a half years of hell. I would never do a system as heavy as Legend again without getting paid upfront and through-out. Never.

Anyone who's advocating LULZ DIY is.... being silly at best, and at worst, is leading innocent gamers down the primrose path. If you're gonna DIY, do it with FATE or Don't Rest Your Head or Burning Wheel. Not ... this.

Hell, do it with Legend.

Starbuck_II

2012-01-29, 01:28 AM

However, besides that, something that irks me is the inability to cross class. That just seems really arbitrary. Why can't my fighter learn a few roguish tricks on the side? he's a very sneaky individual who used to work as a thief when he was a child, why is he unable to cross class except for arbitrary impositions?

Because 4E is closer to 2E than 3E. Did you notice the similarties?
Multiclass normally is something 3rd did completely different than 2E and 4E.
In 2E you have to be non-human and do it at 1st level (or none allowed). And Dual classes was human only but silly so we won't get into that.

In 4E you have to take a multiclass feat or do the Hybrid thing.

MeeposFire

2012-01-29, 01:36 AM

Besides the fighter can pick up roguish tricks. He takes the time to pick up the multiclass feat and he picks up a few tricks (sneak attack 1/encounter and a skill in thievery). As he levels up he can choose to take more roguish tricks such as rogue class feats and taking power swap feats to pick up direct roguish abilities. You could even choose to pick rogue paragon paths and epic destinies. So the idea of a fighter picking up roguish tricks is very much alive in 4e the difference is that 4e puts a lot more emphasis on your original class (much like basic and AD&D) whereas classes mean relatively little in terms of your overall identity in 3e (unless you don't multiclass of course).

As to the original premise

a pound of jagged rocks and a pound of soft feathers may be balanced to each other but I think you have to agree that they are very different just think of which you would rather filling your pillow. Classes can be balanced and be different/fun and if they are not the culprit is the design of the game and not the idea of balance itself.

Surrealistik

2012-01-29, 02:19 AM

The thing is, if i'm going to sacrifice alot of immersion for the sake of system mechanics, i want those mechanics to be REALLY good without need for houseruling.

4th edition... is not perfect, and has a good number of issues requiring houseruling. For example, the lack of hardness means i can just punch or stab my way through solid objects.

However, besides that, something that irks me is the inability to cross class. That just seems really arbitrary. Why can't my fighter learn a few roguish tricks on the side? he's a very sneaky individual who used to work as a thief when he was a child, why is he unable to cross class except for arbitrary impositions?

The only things I've seen that really need house ruling are object hardness, ritual casting (this is debatable but I think so), skill challenges (again debatable but I think so), and feat taxes (a problem in 3.5 as well).

As others have mentioned, cross classing, and learning tricks beyond your primary sphere of competence is alive and well via multiclassing, paragon multiclassing and hybridizing.

Delcor

2012-01-29, 02:38 AM

I have not read all of the forum, but I wanted to offer my opinion on the Original Post.

I have never been in a campaign that did not have at least one fighter, rogue, arcane caster, or cleric. I have also never played with anything outside of the core rules (PHB1, DMG, MM1, and MM2). Balance has never been an issue, EVER, every player fighter, wizard whatever has always contributed, no one has ever been left in the dust, and even the melee martial classes have had fun and contributed even at the campaign cap of level 14ish. I or any other player at our table has never been disappointed with their options or repetition.

2xMachina

2012-01-29, 02:44 AM

Curious

2012-01-29, 02:46 AM

2xMachina

2012-01-29, 02:56 AM

I don't know... More options are good, so long they're informed choices. You could say that Monk becomes a semi-NPC class this way. Easier than playing NPC class, but harder than a normal PC.

Of course, the problem with 3.5 is, they don't bother to tell you. (You might even say they don't even realise it.)

Mystify

2012-01-29, 03:02 AM

I think the lack of class balance is good sometimes.

For example, if we wanted to have a Self Imposed Challenge (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SelfImposedChallenge), we can play a monk. If all classes as powerful as each other, how can we do it?
I do self imposed challenges all the time, but they generally have little to nothing to do with class selection. For example, playing a blind character, and not allowing anything that would remove the blindness or give you blindsight/sense. Or a karsite sorcerer. If you don't know, a karsite is a LA+2 human, which gets some anti-magic themed abilities, and cannot cast spells. Thats right, design an effective character using a sorcerer that can't cast spells. Plenty of ways to do a self-imposed challenge without having weak classes.

RedWarlock

2012-01-29, 03:08 AM

I'll just state up front, I really love and enjoy about 80% of 4e. The other 20% is stuff I really don't care for, or even just don't mind, but would rather see different.

Multiclassing is one of them. I loved the concept of starting out in one thing, taking two or three levels in it, then taking a level in another concept. Depending on your decisions, you could choose to never level up that original class again, just taking levels in your second. (like a rogue3/wiz17)

In part, this is about role versus rolePLAY, so to speak. That rogue started out as a trapsmith and stealthy type, and was a striker for damage. Then, he started fiddling around with more than just UMD, and took a level in wizard, and never looked back. (Especially not after we lost Mitzy the Sorcerer to that mind flayer at level 6, and picked up this new guy, Ralph the Factotum..) He uses that SA dice on his spell-based attacks, and keeps a shortsword on his belt, and so hasn't abandoned rogueyness for the arcane glories entirely, but he has no useable representation in 4e, unless we rebuild him from scratch. He can't switch jobs mid-way (And unless I'm mistaken, he doesn't work in Legend either.)

4e damage and healing surges are entirely logical to me, in part because HP, I've realized, isn't the physical damage you take, it's the pain you feel from that injury. Most healing effects based on surges (whether divine, arcane, or martial) help you ignore that pain, and perhaps recover from your wounds, but there's only so much the body can take at a given time. Part of what cements this is that there ARE clerical powers that heal a surge value without spending the surge itself. Those that heal surge-plus-some, are repairing a bit more damage than what sheer will (IE, a second wind, or free surges during a rest) could manage.

Marks, just to pour a little hydrogen peroxide on the wound, are also fine and dandy. The paladin's mark isn't the significant power of a charm or domination effect, it's just a minor tag to influence opinion. A proper surge of adrenaline, like when a fighter marks you, is enough to wipe away the effect, and a re-application of the divine mark is enough to guide away the minor social inflection of the fighter's mark. Light touches, like circumstance bonuses, or combat advantage, but like CA, it triggers off further abilities that just require that little edge of distraction..

Bort the orc is having a bad day. First this Fighter charged in, and shiny in his heavy armor, and all of a sudden all he could think was, Damn, he's awful shiny. Look at him wave that sword. Freaking Fighters always mess up my day.. Because Bort couldn't pay very close attention to that Wizard who wasn't moving fast or had any armor on, due to the Fighter that was so distractingly shiny, his swing missed. Because he was off-balance from trying to swing at the wizard, the Fighter swung at him and left this painful cut in Bort's shoulder. Bort got pretty pissed off.

Suddenly, this other shiny-armored guy walked in. His armor was even SHINIER, and he had this sun symbol pinned to his chest. He shorted some words in a language Bort didn't understand, because he missed that day in Orc school, and a shining beam of light came from above (Where? We're 250ft underground? he thought), and damn if THAT guy wasn't shiny as sh- wait, that doesn't work.. Anyway, shiny, and enough that it hurt Bort's eyes, and possibly his brain. Anyway, Bort was seeing red, and wasn't paying attention to the not-quite-as-shiny fighter, and he could swear that stupiud fighter was a lot more dangerous-looking a second ago, now he needed to go whack this dumb paladin, and..

OW! That fighter just whacked him on the back of the head! Gruumsh that hurt! Just then, he glanced back at the paladin, and wasn't he looking a lot less headache inducing all of a sudden? Bort couldn't understand what was said, but something in the Fighter's tone in an offhand comment over Bort's shoulder to the Paladin just struck him as incredibly insulting. Maybe it was the dismissive tone Bort had heard other orcs use when talking about the stray dire rats in the alley. All he knew was he had to wipe the bravado off that shiny fighter's smug face...

Okay, so a little Thomas the Tank Engine (can't help it, one of my gamers has a little kid who was watching that in the next room while we gamed at his place a few months ago, and I can't get that infernal 3-year-old-reading-level voice out of my head) but I hope I get the idea across.

Polarity Shift

2012-01-29, 01:11 PM

There's actually an arbitrary wealth hack here.

Exactly my point. The weak guy dies quickly so he has minimal impact, everyone else gets lots of shinies. Eventually the weak guy does what is expected of him and plays D&D with the rest of the group. Alternately, he tries to drag down everyone else, but they're not having any of that and things proceed the same except in a more entertaining manner.

Eventually the Monk will get clean OHKOed and his corpse will accomplish something via turning it into a Telekinesis propelled missile.

Hyudra

2012-01-29, 02:19 PM

I think the lack of class balance is good sometimes.

For example, if we wanted to have a Self Imposed Challenge (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SelfImposedChallenge), we can play a monk. If all classes as powerful as each other, how can we do it?

I think this is true to an extent.

WotC has, in the past, expressed an interest in maintaining some obviously bad options so players will learn to look for & recognize the inevitable superior option.

I think this was in the context of MTG, but I digress...

Toughness is one such option, that exists primarily for two reasons - to give a simple monster feat (and monsters/monster options tend to be simple to make life easier on the DM) and for there to be something the players can recognize as an obviously subpar choice.

As far as classes go, though, I don't think the options should be weak or bad. Especially when there's only one good road to a particular style & flavor (such as the monk - swordsage is fine & good, but the flavor isn't as direct or blatant).

Mystify

2012-01-29, 02:32 PM

I think this is true to an extent.

WotC has, in the past, expressed an interest in maintaining some obviously bad options so players will learn to look for & recognize the inevitable superior option.

I think this was in the context of MTG, but I digress...

Toughness is one such option, that exists primarily for two reasons - to give a simple monster feat (and monsters/monster options tend to be simple to make life easier on the DM) and for there to be something the players can recognize as an obviously subpar choice.

As far as classes go, though, I don't think the options should be weak or bad. Especially when there's only one good road to a particular style & flavor (such as the monk - swordsage is fine & good, but the flavor isn't as direct or blatant).
Bwa... thats .... wha... no... that...

Tengu_temp

2012-01-29, 02:45 PM

I think this is true to an extent.

WotC has, in the past, expressed an interest in maintaining some obviously bad options so players will learn to look for & recognize the inevitable superior option.

This thing? (http://www.montecook.com/cgi-bin/page.cgi?mc_los_142) It's Monte Cook trying to cover his ass by conjuring up excuses instead of admitting "yes, we failed at this whole game balance thing" and proving that he's a bad game designer by applying CCG design philosophy to an RPG.

Lans

2012-01-29, 06:03 PM

This thing? (http://www.montecook.com/cgi-bin/page.cgi?mc_los_142) It's Monte Cook trying to cover his ass by conjuring up excuses instead of admitting "yes, we failed at this whole game balance thing" and proving that he's a bad game designer by applying CCG design philosophy to an RPG.

*Psst* they stated this before 3.0 was even released.

Polarity Shift

2012-01-29, 06:21 PM

Which means he knew he was doing a bad job and did it anyways. That's even worse.

Surrealistik

2012-01-29, 06:23 PM

*Psst* they stated this before 3.0 was even released.

He's still a bad designer for applying inapplicable TCG principles to a tabletop RPG.

EDIT: Ninjaed.

Snowbluff

2012-01-29, 07:25 PM

More importantly, diverse

beguilers and warblades, duskblades and binders, wildshape rangers and dread necros all play infinitely differently

Exactly! You got your thematic casters, melee, skill monkey, etc. It's great. And if you really want invokers and a healer, you can dip into T4 a bit ^^

Hiro Protagonest

2012-01-29, 10:36 PM

AHEM

TIER3TIER3TIER3TIER3TIER3TIER3TIER3TIER3TIER3TIER3 TIER3TIER3TIER3!

It's not boring, use it!

Probably been swordsaged, but balance is attainable and playable.

The tier system doesn't tell you to play tier 3. It tells you that in a group of tier 1-3 characters, a tier 5 is going to be dead weight.

Anything within half a tier is good (tier 1 and 2 parties, 2 and 3 parties, 3 and 4 parties, 4 and 5 parties, and 5 and 6 parties balance nicely).

Mystify

2012-01-29, 10:39 PM

The tier system doesn't tell you to play tier 3. It tells you that in a group of tier 1-3 characters, a tier 5 is going to be dead weight.

Anything within half a tier is good (tier 1 and 2 parties, 2 and 3 parties, 3 and 4 parties, 4 and 5 parties, and 5 and 6 parties balance nicely).

The tier system says that tiers 1 and 2 can break the game, and hence, from a game design standpoint, they should not exist. Tier 3 doesn't break the game, but has enough to do, so it is a good design point. Tier 5 is so low that it doesn't even do its own job right, so its also poorly designed. Hence, from a design standpoint, tier 3 and 4 work best.

Hiro Protagonest

2012-01-29, 10:46 PM

The tier system says that tiers 1 and 2 can break the game, and hence, from a game design standpoint, they should not exist. Tier 3 doesn't break the game, but has enough to do, so it is a good design point. Tier 5 is so low that it doesn't even do its own job right, so its also poorly designed. Hence, from a design standpoint, tier 3 and 4 work best.

Yeah, but a tier 4 and 5 party is pretty decent, too. Warmage, healer, rogue, and fighter or barbarian is a well balanced party.

Tier 1 and 2 parties are for when the DM and players are clear they all want an arms race, since there's a good chance the story will be freakin' awesome. Just look at One Piece.

Lans

2012-01-30, 12:47 AM

Which means he knew he was doing a bad job and did it anyways. That's even worse.

Not necessarily, he could of thought he was doing a great job.

Flickerdart

2012-01-30, 12:52 AM

Yeah, but a tier 4 and 5 party is pretty decent, too. Warmage, healer, rogue, and fighter or barbarian is a well balanced party.
Well balanced between one another, perhaps, but they will have a hell of a time dealing with a considerable number of MM opponents. Against this party, the DM will have to be very careful to avoid an unhappy ending.

Snowbluff

2012-01-30, 01:17 AM

The tier system doesn't tell you to play tier 3. It tells you that in a group of tier 1-3 characters, a tier 5 is going to be dead weight.

Anything within half a tier is good (tier 1 and 2 parties, 2 and 3 parties, 3 and 4 parties, 4 and 5 parties, and 5 and 6 parties balance nicely).

*AHEM* Docter, if you may?

More importantly, diverse

beguilers and warblades, duskblades and binders, wildshape rangers and dread necros all play infinitely differently

We've been over this.

Polarity Shift

2012-01-30, 07:56 AM

Not necessarily, he could of thought he was doing a great job.

That's even worse.

The tier system does try to move everyone towards tier 3. This is in part because of the true statement that lower tier things cannot deal with encounters and in part because the maker is biased against higher tier things, primarily because he personally likes a lot of low tier stuff and the high tier things make their ineffectiveness even more apparent than it already is.

Personal biases have no place in an objective standard however.

All that said it's worth mentioning there isn't a single core tier 3 class (no, core only Bards are weaker than 3).

Gnaeus

2012-01-30, 08:28 AM

The tier system says that tiers 1 and 2 can break the game, and hence, from a game design standpoint, they should not exist. Tier 3 doesn't break the game, but has enough to do, so it is a good design point. Tier 5 is so low that it doesn't even do its own job right, so its also poorly designed. Hence, from a design standpoint, tier 3 and 4 work best.

Ability to break the game is not why you ban tier 1s. Almost any trick that a T1 can do to break the game, I can do with a T3 and a feat, or a with a T5 and a magic item. If you don't want the game broken, tell the players not to break the game.

Mystify

2012-01-30, 10:58 AM

Ability to break the game is not why you ban tier 1s. Almost any trick that a T1 can do to break the game, I can do with a T3 and a feat, or a with a T5 and a magic item. If you don't want the game broken, tell the players not to break the game.
Its not pulling singular broken tricks, that can be countered by the DM. Its the ability to consistently have the right tools for the job and win every encounter singlehandedly when played to their full potential. You can play a tier 1 at the level of a tier 3, but that doesn't mean its not a tier 1 class. Its their pile of "I win" buttons that they can utilize in every situation, their counter to everything.

Helldog

2012-01-30, 11:10 AM

Mystify

2012-01-30, 11:17 AM

But in actual play it matters only how the class is played, not how it could be played. If the Wizard is played as tier 3 and every other class in the team is tier 3-4 than it's alright.
Yes, but in design it matters how it theoretically could be used. All game design works with the general cases. Its up to the DM to decide how it applies to their specific situation. They can give abilities that would be horribly broken in the general case but remain balanced in their specific case. An ability that allows a 8-20 crit range that invokes vorpal on a crit may be very unbalanced, but if nobody uses it then the overpoweredness is irrelevant. That does not mean its not an overpowered ability.

Helldog

2012-01-30, 11:38 AM

Yes, but in design it matters how it theoretically could be used. All game design works with the general cases. Its up to the DM to decide how it applies to their specific situation. They can give abilities that would be horribly broken in the general case but remain balanced in their specific case. An ability that allows a 8-20 crit range that invokes vorpal on a crit may be very unbalanced, but if nobody uses it then the overpoweredness is irrelevant. That does not mean its not an overpowered ability.
So because tier 1s and 2s CAN break the game, you would just ban them?

Mystify

2012-01-30, 11:50 AM

So because tier 1s and 2s CAN break the game, you would just ban them?
No, I said that if I was designing the system I would design them as tier 3s.

Karoht

2012-01-30, 12:31 PM

I find a mostly Tier 3 party can keep up really well with a Tier 1 around. Keep up meaning that no one feels marginalized, but once in a while someone pulls out all the stops or burns a lot of resources and saves the party. Sometimes it's the T1 player, sometimes it's actually a T3 player.
I think redesigning the Tier 1's as Tier 2's would go rather a long way (as in, solve most of the issues right there), let alone chaning them to Tier 3's. And Tier 3 parties I've run with really enjoy that level of power, it actually does have a good feel to it.

Ettin

2012-01-30, 07:45 PM

4th edition... is not perfect, and has a good number of issues requiring houseruling. For example, the lack of hardness means i can just punch or stab my way through solid objects.

My preferred houserule is to use the rules for damaging objects on pages 65-66 of the DMG.

It doesn't have rules for breathing, though. That means I have to houserule something in to prevent PCs dying!

Snowbluff

2012-01-31, 12:51 AM

The tier system does try to move everyone towards tier 3. This is in part because of the true statement that lower tier things cannot deal with encounters and in part because the maker is biased against higher tier things, primarily because he personally likes a lot of low tier stuff and the high tier things make their ineffectiveness even more apparent than it already is.

Well, 2 things. Really silly things.

The Tier has no agenda or intention of it's own. It's a list of facts.

I, however do. I propose that Tier 3 is the best Tier for raw creating fun game balance due to its diversity.

PairO'Dice Lost

2012-01-31, 12:56 AM

My preferred houserule is to use the rules for damaging objects on pages 65-66 of the DMG.

It doesn't have rules for breathing, though. That means I have to houserule something in to prevent PCs dying!

The issue is not that there aren't rules for damaging objects (because there are), but rather that without objects having 3e hardness or a similar attribute, even the weakest attack can eventually bust through any object. A Str 8 wizard can tunnel through a wall with a dagger, and while a DM can obviously houserule that away if he wants to, the fact that a rules-heavy game involving a lot of underground travel through dungeons doesn't have a system in place to prevent simply brute-forcing a dungeon is a weak point in the system.

Lans

2012-01-31, 09:22 AM

That's even worse.

The tier system does try to move everyone towards tier 3. This is in part because of the true statement that lower tier things cannot deal with encounters and in part because the maker is biased against higher tier things, primarily because he personally likes a lot of low tier stuff and the high tier things make their ineffectiveness even more apparent than it already is.

Actually it doesn't, JaronK just stated that tier 3 is his preferable choice. And its perfectly doable to handle encounters with a tier 5-4 party. Essentially the only only thing that they won't be able to do is handle are things out of whack for their CR and optimized casters.

All that said it's worth mentioning there isn't a single core tier 3 class (no, core only Bards are weaker than 3).
Have you looked at the bards spell list? They might not be tier 3, but its at the very least very debatable.

Edit-Tier ones don't just break the game with pun pun, gate shenanigans, they break it by things like teleport, locate object, speak with dead, and things that just make unprepared DMs shove 8 pages of plans into a shredder

Edit-I think going for an exact tier balance is too hard and pointless. If the only classes that were made were the ones that we now label as tier 3, we still could go through and rank those classes into their own tiers.

I think fixing the current classes down to a range of 4-2 would be ideal.

Gnaeus

2012-01-31, 11:38 AM

Its not pulling singular broken tricks, that can be countered by the DM. Its the ability to consistently have the right tools for the job and win every encounter singlehandedly when played to their full potential. You can play a tier 1 at the level of a tier 3, but that doesn't mean its not a tier 1 class. Its their pile of "I win" buttons that they can utilize in every situation, their counter to everything.

But that isn't what you said. You said:

The tier system says that tiers 1 and 2 can break the game, and hence, from a game design standpoint, they should not exist.

What is it about a tier 2 that breaks the game? Polymorph? Wish? Miracle? Shapechange? Time Stop? Teleport?

There isn't one of those that I can't do with a Beguiler or Dread Necro if I am willing to put in the minimal effort to see which domain I need to Arcane Disciple.

If your PCs want to break the game, they can break the game. Breaking games is easy. Banning Tier 1s and 2s doesn't stop it. Banning Tier 1s and 2s and all the broken spells on their spell list comes closer, but if you are going to put in that much effort to find and smite broken spells, you may as well let the tier 1s and 2s back into play.

Its not pulling singular broken tricks, that can be countered by the DM. Its the ability to consistently have the right tools for the job and win every encounter singlehandedly when played to their full potential. You can play a tier 1 at the level of a tier 3, but that doesn't mean its not a tier 1 class. Its their pile of "I win" buttons that they can utilize in every situation, their counter to everything.

If the DM merely wants to counter one broken trick (looking into the future to allow the paranoid wizard to know what he will fight tomorrow), your argument fails. On any given day, the typical tier 1 will not have significantly more I win buttons than a well built tier 2 or 3. It is trivially easy to make a Dread Necro who can do fort or will save or loses, direct or AOE damage, healing, debuffs, minionmancy, and battlefield control. Add a PRC or a feat and he adds more tricks.

Sure, the well built T1 can outdo any T5 in his own specialty without trying hard. But so can a T2 or many T3s. The T1 wizard probably has exactly the right scroll sitting in his bag of tricks to curbstomp an encounter, but a Sorcerer or Beguiler is almost as likely to have that scroll sitting there. If you don't want your game broken, tell your players not to break the game. If you design your game with all tier 3s, thinking that protects you from game breakage, Beguiler and Dread Necro have a world of hurt with your name on it.

Polarity Shift

2012-01-31, 12:07 PM

Well, 2 things. Really silly things.

The Tier has no agenda or intention of it's own. It's a list of facts.

I, however do. I propose that Tier 3 is the best Tier for raw creating fun game balance due to its diversity.

The manner in which they are described and discussed make the bias towards the middle clear. Most people pick up on this which is why most people obsess with it. Ultimately though tier 3 is overrated. It lacks too many critical things that are not obtainable otherwise. Even in terms of basic number stuff. For example without at least one tier 1 or 2, the entire party will have bad saves. Get hit by more than one spell (since you'd presumably Concentration check the first) and you're screwed.

Actually it doesn't, JaronK just stated that tier 3 is his preferable choice. And its perfectly doable to handle encounters with a tier 5-4 party. Essentially the only only thing that they won't be able to do is handle are things out of whack for their CR and optimized casters.

Not true at all. Such a party would be limited to charging as its main trick since that's about the only thing they can do as a group. That is easily shut down by any number of things, leaving them helpless. Even stuff like Fireball spammers - who pose no threat to any decent party beyond the boredom factor have a good chance of just killing them all simply because they have such few countermeasures for even the most basic of situations.

Which is exactly what you expect from classes primarily defined by what they cannot do.

Have you looked at the bards spell list? They might not be tier 3, but its at the very least very debatable.

In core? No, the spells aren't doing it. Too little, too few, too late. Bards need non core stuff to hit the middle of the range, otherwise they can't do much of anything.

Edit-Tier ones don't just break the game with pun pun, gate shenanigans, they break it by things like teleport, locate object, speak with dead, and things that just make unprepared DMs shove 8 pages of plans into a shredder

Pun Pun is Paladin based, Gate can be cast by many classes including the Healer, anything broken by fast travel or find adventure deserves to be broken, and Speak with Dead is also more broadly available.

Also Planar Binding is doable by Dread Necromancers even if you discount the item route.

That argument has no merit at all.

Hiro Protagonest

2012-01-31, 12:36 PM

The manner in which they are described and discussed make the bias towards the middle clear. Most people pick up on this which is why most people obsess with it. Ultimately though tier 3 is overrated. It lacks too many critical things that are not obtainable otherwise. Even in terms of basic number stuff. For example without at least one tier 1 or 2, the entire party will have bad saves. Get hit by more than one spell (since you'd presumably Concentration check the first) and you're screwed.
Four feats. Endurance, Steadfast Determination, Iron Will, Indomitable Soul. Two of those are warblade bonus feats.

Not true at all. Such a party would be limited to charging as its main trick since that's about the only thing they can do as a group. That is easily shut down by any number of things, leaving them helpless. Even stuff like Fireball spammers - who pose no threat to any decent party beyond the boredom factor have a good chance of just killing them all simply because they have such few countermeasures for even the most basic of situations.

Which is exactly what you expect from classes primarily defined by what they cannot do.
Lockdown barbarian/fighter, two-weapon fighting rogue, warmage, and healer. You telling me that's not viable?

In core? No, the spells aren't doing it. Too little, too few, too late. Bards need non core stuff to hit the middle of the range, otherwise they can't do much of anything.
Feather Fall, Animate Rope, Alter Self, Blur, Glitterdust, Heroism, Invisibility, Suggestion, Dispel Magic, Displacement, Blink, Clairaudience/Clairvoyance, Haste, Freedom of Movement, Dimension Door, Greater Invisibility, Shadow Conjuration, Shout Greater Heroism, Shadow Evocation, Mass Suggestion, Greater Shout, Otto's Irresistible Dance.

Pun Pun is Paladin based, Gate can be cast by many classes including the Healer, anything broken by fast travel or find adventure deserves to be broken, and Speak with Dead is also more broadly available.
So now every DM should plan for the PCs to go off in every direction a few hundred miles?

Level 1 Pun-Pun is a wizard, not a paladin.

Also Planar Binding is doable by Dread Necromancers even if you discount the item route.
Every class can use wish loops for 6400 gp. Also, I thought you were complaining about how underpowered tier 3s were earlier.

erikun

2012-01-31, 01:01 PM

Level 1 Pun-Pun is a wizard, not a paladin.
Level 1 Pun-Pun is whatever class it wants to be, because it relies on a deity giving it a free item for infinite wishes.

The higher level Pun-Puns were either Kobold Wizards (for a familiar, and the spells to change shapes) and later as a Psion (much the same). I don't recally a Pun-Pun Paladin, or at least not one that actually made use of any Paladin abilities.

Mikeavelli

2012-01-31, 01:19 PM

Polarity Shift

2012-01-31, 01:27 PM

Level 1 Pun-Pun is whatever class it wants to be, because it relies on a deity giving it a free item for infinite wishes.

The higher level Pun-Puns were either Kobold Wizards (for a familiar, and the spells to change shapes) and later as a Psion (much the same). I don't recally a Pun-Pun Paladin, or at least not one that actually made use of any Paladin abilities.

Pazazu.

Four feats. Endurance, Steadfast Determination, Iron Will, Indomitable Soul. Two of those are warblade bonus feats.

Getting better but still not good. To get good you need spells only available to Clerics and Favored Souls.

Lockdown barbarian/fighter, two-weapon fighting rogue, warmage, and healer. You telling me that's not viable?

Not enough to deal with any decent encounter no. At best it comes down to the Warmage (who has few means of increasing init) going first and trying to one shot it with some super nuke. If he loses init, or doesn't kill every enemy on the field people start dropping. Fast. The Rogue is just kind of there, the Healer can't do anything but heal in combat, something that is even less useful since the party's extremely low defenses mean the chances they go straight from fine to dead without passing low (HP) or collecting 200 dollars are extremely high. The Barbarian is limited to an extremely small subset of enemies and can't kill them, only hold them there.

Feather Fall, Animate Rope, Alter Self, Blur, Glitterdust, Heroism, Invisibility, Suggestion, Dispel Magic, Displacement, Blink, Clairaudience/Clairvoyance, Haste, Freedom of Movement, Dimension Door, Greater Invisibility, Shadow Conjuration, Shout Greater Heroism, Shadow Evocation, Mass Suggestion, Greater Shout, Otto's Irresistible Dance.

Few castings, few spells known, and slower advancement. Which is what I said. Most of their offensive effects are Mind Affecting so that's a non starter.

So now every DM should plan for the PCs to go off in every direction a few hundred miles?

Why are the PCs wanting to go to a given place? If they're doing it for no reason that isn't a problem with fast travel. If they have goals there then clearly they want to begin accomplishing those goals.

Also, I thought you were complaining about how underpowered tier 3s were earlier.

The point was tier 1 = game breakers, lower tiers = not game breakers is invalid. Game breakers are independent of the tier system, despite it being somewhat designed around them.

What matters is what you can do in actual games. And in that regard tier 3s miss out on many critical things despite their being overhyped. If you have at least one tier 1-2, you can get those things anyways. If you subscribe to the all tier 3 all the time mentality, enjoy your fragile and easily shut down characters.

Bovine Colonel

2012-01-31, 01:54 PM

Not enough to deal with any decent encounter no. At best it comes down to the Warmage (who has few means of increasing init) going first and trying to one shot it with some super nuke. If he loses init, or doesn't kill every enemy on the field people start dropping. Fast. The Rogue is just kind of there, the Healer can't do anything but heal in combat, something that is even less useful since the party's extremely low defenses mean the chances they go straight from fine to dead without passing low (HP) or collecting 200 dollars are extremely high. The Barbarian is limited to an extremely small subset of enemies and can't kill them, only hold them there.

Solution: The DM uses enemies with similar tiers as the players. Assuming the DM knows what his party composition looks like, balancing encounters is one of his/her basic responsibilities.

Hiro Protagonest

2012-01-31, 06:56 PM

Ceaon

2012-02-01, 04:54 AM

Solution: The DM uses enemies with similar tiers as the players. Assuming the DM knows what his party composition looks like, balancing encounters is one of his/her basic responsibilities.

This would be a great solution except for the fact that the higher tier PCs and monsters would completely overshadow the efforts of the lower tier PCs and monsters, just to combat eachother.

Polarity Shift

2012-02-01, 06:10 AM

Solution: The DM uses enemies with similar tiers as the players. Assuming the DM knows what his party composition looks like, balancing encounters is one of his/her basic responsibilities.

At which point a Beguiler smacks them around just as easily as a Wizard would, because the ultimate problem - bad saves, is just as exploitable by them. It isn't just spells either, physical attacks will kill them with only a little more difficulty (because some of them DO get decent defenses against those).

A Fire Giant is also more dangerous than a Beholder, and 3 most certainly is so I have no idea what point you are trying to make.

Hiro Protagonest

2012-02-01, 09:18 AM

A Fire Giant is also more dangerous than a Beholder, and 3 most certainly is so I have no idea what point you are trying to make.

I didn't check the CR. Frost giant then.

onemorelurker

2012-02-01, 11:53 AM

This would be a great solution except for the fact that the higher tier PCs and monsters would completely overshadow the efforts of the lower tier PCs and monsters, just to combat eachother.

Hence, party balance is important. The party Jade Dragon proposed is all T4 or T5, which means that there aren't any characters significantly more powerful than the others. If the party was Fighter/Barbarian, Rogue, Healer, Wizard, then the DM might have a problem finding encounters that were challenging for the Wizard without being impossible for everybody else, but as-is, as long as the PCs stick close together, tier-wise, finding encounters for them shouldn't be much trouble.

A Fire Giant is also more dangerous than a Beholder, and 3 most certainly is so I have no idea what point you are trying to make.

How so? One Fire Giant is CR 10. Two Fire Giants (Jade Dragon actually suggested 1 or 2, not 1 or 3) are a combined CR 12. One Beholder is CR 13. Are Fire Giants particularly difficult for their CR?

Polarity Shift

2012-02-01, 12:54 PM

I didn't check the CR. Frost giant then.

A Frost Giant hits about as hard, and now you get 4 of them. That's even more dangerous.

How so? One Fire Giant is CR 10. Two Fire Giants (Jade Dragon actually suggested 1 or 2, not 1 or 3) are a combined CR 12. One Beholder is CR 13. Are Fire Giants particularly difficult for their CR?

No. However Beholders are incredibly easy. All they have is a bunch of save effects with the DCs so low that even with the bad saves you have nothing to fear except a natural 1. And then the Beholder has bad defenses, so it will get few chances to make you get that 1.

Giants are also defensively weak but not as much so, and the sheer volume of 3 Fire Giants or 4 Frost Giants required to make a theoretically equivalent encounter means it takes longer to kill them. Meanwhile they kill someone every single round. The 4 giants can take out two.

Giants are a very basic enemy. If you can't deal with that you have no hope against anything that isn't much lower level than it says it is. That leaves you picking on Monks, literally and figuratively. Even then I wouldn't be surprised to see the party getting beat down by them. After all they're on the same level.

And unless you can one round all of them, they go and murder the Warmage and the Healer leaving you with a 0% chance of walking away from this.

Good luck pulling that off since your only hope is someone with few means of going first going first and one shotting everything before it gets in range.

onemorelurker

2012-02-01, 01:16 PM

No. However Beholders are incredibly easy. All they have is a bunch of save effects with the DCs so low that even with the bad saves you have nothing to fear except a natural 1. And then the Beholder has bad defenses, so it will get few chances to make you get that 1.

Giants are also defensively weak but not as much so, and the sheer volume of 3 Fire Giants or 4 Frost Giants required to make a theoretically equivalent encounter means it takes longer to kill them. Meanwhile they kill someone every single round. The 4 giants can take out two.

Giants are a very basic enemy. If you can't deal with that you have no hope against anything that isn't much lower level than it says it is. That leaves you picking on Monks, literally and figuratively. Even then I wouldn't be surprised to see the party getting beat down by them. After all they're on the same level.

And unless you can one round all of them, they go and murder the Warmage and the Healer leaving you with a 0% chance of walking away from this.

Good luck pulling that off since your only hope is someone with few means of going first going first and one shotting everything before it gets in range.

Oh! Thank you for the clarification about giants and beholders.

But what's wrong with a low-tier party fighting lower-CR opponents than their higher-tier brethren? I don't mean "enough lower-CR opponents to make an equivalent challenge," I mean "lower-CR encounters overall." Again, if one character is significantly more powerful than the rest, this doesn't work, but if two fire giants (or even one fire giant) are/is an appropriate challenge for a level 14 T4/T5 party, why should the DM put in an extra giant? I mean, would you limit a Wizard, Cleric, Druid, and StP Erudite party to "CR-appropriate" encounters that they can steamroll through?

To me, the DM's job when selecting monsters is to find things that will challenge the specific party they're DMing for without being impossible, regardless of what the CR table says.

Pinniped

2012-02-01, 01:51 PM

But "you need x successes before y failures" is a complete dissociation from everything. Some things don't innately have a penalty for failure, and the skill system doesn't care. You often get bonuses for doing a skill, even if it doesn't actually relate to what you are doing now. Other times what you accomplish with the skills is not terribly relevant to the actual outcome.
For instance, we had this giant barrier of spellplauge to get over. Instead of simply running through the scenario of how we deal with the barrier, figuring out how to get everyone past, it was a skill challenge, where we needed to get so many successes to get past it. We actually succeeded at the challenge before we got everyone over the barrier. And that was one of the better skill challenges I played with.
Skill challenges dissociate your actions from their cause and effect, and instead tries to lump the entire thing as one unit.

That seems like a failure of the DM to tie the outcome of a player's action to the mechanics he's using.

If a player tries to do something that doesn't have an obvious penalty for failure, then the DM can either (a) not count it as a failure or (b) invent some fluff to explain why it is. If a player fails a History check to figure out the best way to sneak into a castle, then you could write that off as simply "he doesn't know a better way in" without counting it as a failure, or you could treat it as "he leads the party to where he incorrectly believes a secret passage should be, wasting time / making enough noise to put the guards on edge / whatever" to explain why the party is now closer to failing to sneak in.

When your DM decided that your whole party was past the barrier without having actually narrated how the remaining members got past it, that was silly. He could have come up with some reason for the challenge being completed once you had enough people on the other side (can they help the others over somehow?), or he could have decided the Skill Challenge framework was inappropriate for the situation and discarded it. But choosing to use a mechanic to resolve something and then failing to marry the narration to it isn't somehow particular to Skill Challenges.

Not that Skill Challenges as they originally appeared in the PHB were great. Definitely not. I just disagree with your specific criticism -- that they are a total dissociation. They're not, unless you run them that way, the same as every other mechanic. All they do is encourage the DM to translate otherwise abstract character actions into tangible steps towards success.

For example, "I see if there's anything to learn about the castle's defenses in the local library" is something a player could suggest in any edition. And in any edition, the DM could translate that into bonuses on future checks ("the northeast tower is the oldest, that will be the easiest to climb") or definite progress by itself ("you find a reference to an ancient, secret tunnel, allowing you to bypass the outer wall"). What 4e does it push DMs into doing that, as opposed to simply saying "no, I don't see how that would help -- you still need to roll Athletics to climb the wall instead."

I guess what I'm saying is that they real benefit of Skill Challenges is that they help new DMs act like good DMs. That good DMs can do without them isn't a flaw in my opinion.

Polarity Shift

2012-02-01, 01:53 PM

Oh! Thank you for the clarification about giants and beholders.

But what's wrong with a low-tier party fighting lower-CR opponents than their higher-tier brethren? I don't mean "enough lower-CR opponents to make an equivalent challenge," I mean "lower-CR encounters overall." Again, if one character is significantly more powerful than the rest, this doesn't work, but if two fire giants (or even one fire giant) are/is an appropriate challenge for a level 14 T4/T5 party, why should the DM put in an extra giant? I mean, would you limit a Wizard, Cleric, Druid, and StP Erudite party to "CR-appropriate" encounters that they can steamroll through?

First, the lower people get half XP, because that's what being lower level in this instance means.

Second, two fire giants still require you kill both of them in a single round or they kill one of you and this process repeats with 2 fire giant actions equaling one dead PC until you DO kill them.

Third, they're 14 now instead of 13? Even less XP.

Fourth, a party of Wizard, Cleric, Druid, and StP Erudite either gets normal fights they can deal with or harder fights they can still deal with but are more rewarding.

Either way the result is that the lower tier guys are not level appropriate, and the higher ones are.

Make the group tier 3 and they'll still have bad defenses, so they'll still have to win quickly or lose.

To me, the DM's job when selecting monsters is to find things that will challenge the specific party they're DMing for without being impossible, regardless of what the CR table says.

And my point is that there are very few things that fit this definition when the entire party is that weak. Either they must pick on literal or figurative Monks, or they will rack up a body count on themselves more akin to a game of Paranoia than D&D.

Even basic, iconic enemies such as giants have an extremely high chance to just blow them away. If Beholders had better save DCs all it would take is a few seconds of shooting off light beams everywhere like a disco ball and they're done.

All they've done is make the DM's job harder as now he either has to constantly struggle to find that small subsection of enemies that does not slaughter them, constantly find reasons for people to be raised or replaced, or both.

And all of it comes back to things lower than tier 3 being primarily defined by what they cannot do, and tier 3 being overhyped on account of missing many critical things that only come from higher tier classes.

Helldog

2012-02-01, 02:17 PM

Fourth, a party of Wizard, Cleric, Druid, and StP Erudite either gets normal fights they can deal with or harder fights they can still deal with but are more rewarding.
Use high-tier/optimized opponents.

Either way the result is that the lower tier guys are not level appropriate, and the higher ones are.
Use low-tier/unoptimized opponents.

Simple.

And all of it comes back to things lower than tier 3 being primarily defined by what they cannot do, and tier 3 being overhyped on account of missing many critical things that only come from higher tier classes.
D&D is a cooperative game. In a low tier team everyone does his own thing. Some people like that. I mean, there's a lot of whineing about being obsoleted or overshadowed. There's no oboletion or overshadowing in a low tier game.

Mystify

2012-02-01, 02:21 PM

That seems like a failure of the DM to tie the outcome of a player's action to the mechanics he's using.

If a player tries to do something that doesn't have an obvious penalty for failure, then the DM can either (a) not count it as a failure or (b) invent some fluff to explain why it is. If a player fails a History check to figure out the best way to sneak into a castle, then you could write that off as simply "he doesn't know a better way in" without counting it as a failure, or you could treat it as "he leads the party to where he incorrectly believes a secret passage should be, wasting time / making enough noise to put the guards on edge / whatever" to explain why the party is now closer to failing to sneak in.

When your DM decided that your whole party was past the barrier without having actually narrated how the remaining members got past it, that was silly. He could have come up with some reason for the challenge being completed once you had enough people on the other side (can they help the others over somehow?), or he could have decided the Skill Challenge framework was inappropriate for the situation and discarded it. But choosing to use a mechanic to resolve something and then failing to marry the narration to it isn't somehow particular to Skill Challenges.

Not that Skill Challenges as they originally appeared in the PHB were great. Definitely not. I just disagree with your specific criticism -- that they are a total dissociation. They're not, unless you run them that way, the same as every other mechanic. All they do is encourage the DM to translate otherwise abstract character actions into tangible steps towards success.

For example, "I see if there's anything to learn about the castle's defenses in the local library" is something a player could suggest in any edition. And in any edition, the DM could translate that into bonuses on future checks ("the northeast tower is the oldest, that will be the easiest to climb") or definite progress by itself ("you find a reference to an ancient, secret tunnel, allowing you to bypass the outer wall"). What 4e does it push DMs into doing that, as opposed to simply saying "no, I don't see how that would help -- you still need to roll Athletics to climb the wall instead."

I guess what I'm saying is that they real benefit of Skill Challenges is that they help new DMs act like good DMs. That good DMs can do without them isn't a flaw in my opinion.

The skill challenges I encountered were all in official modules, namely living forgotten realms and forge of war. They were largely dissociative. For instance, we were crossing a desert. Everyone had to make endurance checks. The wizard was able to use "make campsite" to substitute arcana for endurance, which was fine. I had a vampire power to give me a bonus to endurance, which was fine. But it still boils down to "at least 3 of you must succeed on endurance, or everyone looses healing surges". So its not "oh, look, the tough hardy characters can take the desert heat, but the frailer ones are suffering", but "Oh, these people are doing fine, so that somehow sheilds everyone else" or "The tough character got a 35 on his endurance, but because everyone else is weak, they are succumbing to the desert as well". You could try to argue something about the hardy people aiding the weak, but then what did the aid checks represent? There was definitely a time where the warden aided someone else, and it made them succeed, which meant the group succeeded. So he aided someone else, making them tough enough that they could aid everyone? It makes no sense.

And if you are not using pre-written skill challenges, the poor DMs aren't going to include knowledge history as a skill to get over the castle. If they are not a good DM, they are not going to utilize skill challenges properly, and if they are a good DM, they don't need them. Its a framework that doesn't need to be there, and it only serves to dissociate the actions from their effects. If you can clearly show how everything is a step towards progress, then why couldn't they just do that in the first place and make progress? If the goal is to get everyone over a wall, then suceeding a climb check makes progress. Failing it means you make no real progress, and failing it by too much means somebody looses progress. Putting down a rope makes it easier, you can tie the rope around the person who can't climb and haul them up with the people who did make it up, the strong, expert climber may carry a lighter, weak ally, etc. There is no arbitrary "You succeeded 5 checks, you get over", you get over when that event actually occurs. If there is nothing there to punish failure, then you can keep trying until you get it right. Falling off the wall and taking damage is an innate punishment. If there is something posing further challenge, say, the castle is guarded, then that is something you directly deal with. The stealthy character may climb ahead and take out the guards on the section of wall you want to climb, the wizard may cast a silence spell on the group so they don't hear you climbing over the wall, or spiderclimbs so they can make it up easily. If there is a patrolling guard they would have to remain undetected by them.

Everything directly follows cause and effect, and those chains of effects lead to success or failure. The very idea that you need 5 successes before 7 failures is a complete disassociation. That may be applicable in some places, but it is a not a widely applicable metric.

The_Jackal

2012-02-01, 02:49 PM

While I'm in some agreement with you regarding how D&D should be a cooperative venture, rather than a competitive one, that doesn't make balance an unimportant issue.

It's not very satisfying to be effectively support-cast for someone else's game, and that's what playing an underpowered character really winds up feeling like. If that's what you set out to do, that's one thing, but few gamers knowingly do that.

The reason you see so much harping on balance among RPGers is that most people want to play and feel heroic, and being constantly upstaged by one party member runs directly counter to that feeling.

Helldog

2012-02-01, 02:52 PM

Polarity Shift

2012-02-01, 03:17 PM

Use high-tier/optimized opponents.

Which means more rewards. Exactly what I said.

Use low-tier/unoptimized opponents.

Simple.

We've already been over how that doesn't work.

D&D is a cooperative game. In a low tier team everyone does his own thing. Some people like that. I mean, there's a lot of whineing about being obsoleted or overshadowed. There's no oboletion or overshadowing in a low tier game.

Perhaps it is just me, but I consider being beaten by the enemies as if my character were an auburn haired child of only one parent to be overshadowing. Or was your point that being killed easily and repeatedly by the enemies goes beyond merely being outclassed? Because I could easily agree with that but I doubt that is what you intended.

And I am 99% certain the person he is talking to is you.

Hiro Protagonest

2012-02-01, 03:22 PM

Which means more rewards. Exactly what I said.

Where the heck did you get the idea that the GM hands out more gold pieces for an encounter of the same CR?

Also, not everyone has to be a walking solo party. It's preferable if nobody is.

lunar2

2012-02-01, 03:56 PM

a degree of class balance is necessary to maximize enjoyment.

in my first campaign, i was the cleric in a party with a fighter, a barbarian, and a monk. in that party, my first turn was getting a group buff up, and consecutive turns were either emergency healing or trying to get a few more buffs up. when i tried to act directly against an enemy, somebody would be put in serious danger because i wasn't holding their hand. if one of them got dropped because i was too busy saving another, i got chewed out for not healing them.

that is the kind of problems that class imbalance causes. the T4/T5 characters had the illusion of power because of my constant hand-holding, but the slightest mistake on their part meant someone might die, and they required so much of my resources that I couldn't actually do anything myself.

on the other hand, encounters that they could actually survive a round in were too easy, because i could simply blow the enemy to oblivion with a mid level spell or two.

so, either I didn't have fun because i had to be the baby-sitter, or they didn't have fun because 1. I completely outclassed them or 2. I couldn't keep up with 3 separate emergencies at once.

Lans

2012-02-01, 04:29 PM

And unless you can one round all of them, they go and murder the Warmage and the Healer leaving you with a 0% chance of walking away from this.

Good luck pulling that off since your only hope is someone with few means of going first going first and one shotting everything before it gets in range.

Say round 1 warmage casts ice storm and the party walks away. What are the giants doing?

Second, two fire giants still require you kill both of them in a single round or they kill one of you and this process repeats with 2 fire giant actions equaling one dead PC until you DO kill them.

.

Why are your 14th level characters dieing from 50 points of damage?

TuggyNE

2012-02-01, 05:04 PM

While I'm in some agreement with you regarding how D&D should be a cooperative venture, rather than a competitive one, that doesn't make balance an unimportant issue.

On that note, is there a name for the fallacy you are arguing against here? (essentially, "D&D is a cooperative game, therefore its design need not take balance into consideration.") I've seen it quite a bit....

Binks

2012-02-01, 05:22 PM

On that note, is there a name for the fallacy you are arguing against here? (essentially, "D&D is a cooperative game, therefore its design need not take balance into consideration.") I've seen it quite a bit....

Special Pleading? The argument that, while games need balance in order to be fun (games where your opponents have an inbuilt advantage over you are not very fun), cooperative games get an exception to this rule. Unless there is a very good, well defined reason to grant such an exception the argument is special pleading.

Helldog

2012-02-01, 05:33 PM

Which means more rewards. Exactly what I said.
What rewards? It seems you didn't understand what I said. I didn't suggest making the enemies lower level. I said "low tier" (as in subpar classes) and "unoptimized" (as in subpar builds and weaker choices).

We've already been over how that doesn't work.
It does work. You've been over how lower level enemies just give the players less rewards (less XP, less gold). But that's not what I said. I said "high tier" (as in Wizards, Clerics or underCRed monsters like dragons) and "optimized" (as in strong builds, min/maxed monsters). For example, instead of a dragon or Barbarian with Shock Trooper, you make a Fighter or Warrior with Toughness. Low tier class, subpar choices. It works just fine. just because there are dragons, doesn't mean you have to use them. Just like because there are good feats or spells that you know of, doesn't mean that you have to give them to your monsters.

Perhaps it is just me, but I consider being beaten by the enemies as if my character were an auburn haired child of only one parent to be overshadowing.
Perhaps your DM isn't doing it right?

Or was your point that being killed easily and repeatedly by the enemies goes beyond merely being outclassed?
I'm not entirely following your train of thought.
What I meant is that you don't have to have PCs that can solo level appropriate encounters for the game to work. If one PC is specialized in melee combat, but there's an encounter where that's not useful (like a flying opponent), another PC can deal with it. That's the point of creating teams. Not to get more power but to cover each others weaknesses.

And I am 99% certain the person he is talking to is you.
In that case I don't know what he's babbling about.

Polarity Shift

2012-02-01, 05:51 PM

Where the heck did you get the idea that the GM hands out more gold pieces for an encounter of the same CR?

Also, not everyone has to be a walking solo party. It's preferable if nobody is.

Because harder fights give greater rewards, and even if you're shifting it to the same CR now casters get more gear than anyone else. That directly translates to more gold assuming you sell it instead of using it.

Who said anything about walking solo parties?

Say round 1 warmage casts ice storm and the party walks away. What are the giants doing?

Moving much faster than the party after losing a tiny portion of their HP. What was the point of this?

Why are your 14th level characters dieing from 50 points of damage?

Last I checked 6 attacks is 153. Even after considering not all will hit that's still 2 fire giant actions = one dead PC even though you've boosted them all the way up to level 14... and there are 4 of them.

What rewards? It seems you didn't understand what I said. I didn't suggest making the enemies lower level. I said "low tier" (as in subpar classes) and "unoptimized" (as in subpar builds and weaker choices).

The XP and gold. When you fight half as many enemies you get half as much of both. These are completely stock enemies, no special tricks just run up and hit it. The bar does not go any lower, so if you cannot step over it it's time to switch to a character that can.

It does work. You've been over how lower level enemies just give the players less rewards (less XP, less gold). But that's not what I said. I said "high tier" (as in Wizards, Clerics or underCRed monsters like dragons) and "optimized" (as in strong builds, min/maxed monsters). For example, instead of a dragon or Barbarian with Shock Trooper, you make a Fighter or Warrior with Toughness. Low tier class, subpar choices. It works just fine. just because there are dragons, doesn't mean you have to use them. Just like because there are good feats or spells that you know of, doesn't mean that you have to give them to your monsters.

None of this has anything to do with anything that has been said. None of this is correct, either.

Perhaps your DM isn't doing it right?

If my character is so weak that stock enemies are smacking them around like a red headed stepchild, I will not blame others for my own shortcomings. I will make a D&D character that can play D&D.

I'm not entirely following your train of thought.
What I meant is that you don't have to have PCs that can solo level appropriate encounters for the game to work. If one PC is specialized in melee combat, but there's an encounter where that's not useful (like a flying opponent), another PC can deal with it. That's the point of creating teams. Not to get more power but to cover each others weaknesses.

Who said anything about soloing? And the whole "team" thing has only been brought up as a justification for making characters that can't do anything on their own. Well to truly be a team you have to do something for and with your team. Weak characters do not do this. Try playing basketball if you don't know how to dribble, see how long that lasts.

Z3ro

2012-02-01, 06:01 PM

None of this has anything to do with anything that has been said. None of this is correct, either.

Just to clarify; are you saying that you can't switch out feast or classes to make a challenge easier? Or that you can't use easier monsters against a party? Cause if so, I'm pretty sure you can.

Hiro Protagonest

2012-02-01, 06:05 PM

Who said anything about walking solo parties?

A party is formed to have all the fundamental bases covered. But you think a character isn't good enough unless they have all the bases covered on their own. A single party member being knocked unconscious or hit with a status effect? Obviously means we're going to lose the battle and that character's going to die.

NNescio

2012-02-01, 06:11 PM

Helldog

2012-02-01, 06:12 PM

Because harder fights give greater rewards
Nope. Higher CR fights give greater rewards. If a fight is the appropriate CR, but more optimmized, you get the same rewards, but the fight is harder.

Who said anything about walking solo parties?
You of course.

Last I checked 6 attacks is 153. Even after considering not all will hit that's still 2 fire giant actions = one dead PC even though you've boosted them all the way up to level 14... and there are 4 of them.
There's nothing forcing the giants to focus fire on one PC.

The XP and gold. When you fight half as many enemies you get half as much of both. These are completely stock enemies, no special tricks just run up and hit it. The bar does not go any lower, so if you cannot step over it it's time to switch to a character that can.
I see you ignored what I said. not nice.

None of this has anything to do with anything that has been said. None of this is correct, either.
Yes it does. And yes it does.

If my character is so weak that stock enemies are smacking them around like a red headed stepchild, I will not blame others for my own shortcomings. I will make a D&D character that can play D&D.
Good for you. But not everyone can or cares to do it. and stop with the rude comments.

Who said anything about soloing?
You.

Gnaeus

2012-02-01, 06:29 PM

D&D is a cooperative game. In a low tier team everyone does his own thing. Some people like that.

While I'm in some agreement with you regarding how D&D should be a cooperative venture, rather than a competitive one, that doesn't make balance an unimportant issue.

Bolded statement is so far from universally true as to make it false. Consider the following scenarios...

A group of teammates (like LoTR, Gimli and Legolas) where everyone works together, but there are rivalries about who kills the most bad guys.

A group of teammates where everyone works together, until someone gets lycanthropy and turns CE, or gets dominated by Strahd.

A group of teammates where everyone works together, but someone, IC or OOC, is so cautious that his character pulls out of combat at the merest hint of threat.

A group of teammates (like in Emerald Rose's Never Split the Party) where everyone works together, mostly, but the iconic thief will happily help himself if he finds the secret treasure room. Taken a step further, a game in which PCs may actively come to blows over a particularly valuable piece of loot or the outcome of a key plot point.

A group of teammates where everyone works together for big stuff in the major plot arc, but where PCs have individual goals which may actively conflict.

A group of teammates (like Dragonlance) where everyone works together, short term, but long term, their goals diverge wildly. If you are Tanis, knowing Raistlin can kill a lot of draconians is very comforting. Knowing that he can kill the entire party... not so much.

A sandbox game where anything goes. If the Cleric of Pelor wants to dust the Necropolitan before they leave the tavern, DM will adjudicate and watch the fun.

A tournament game with winners and losers, like Cheesegrinder, or some of the old 1st ed tourney games. Where you have incentives to cooperate, until you need to kill your nearest competitor to secure your victory.

How many of those are plausible ways a D&D game could go? All of them! Saying that D&D is a cooperative game is like saying that spellcasters are Druids. They could be. Maybe you prefer it when they are. But there are a whole lot of times when they aren't. And in most of those scenarios, a wide disparity in party power level may be a very bad thing.

Helldog

2012-02-01, 06:33 PM

Snip.
Oh, but the bolded statement IS true. But I know how the game IS played in many groups, and I can't (and don't even core to) force every player in the world to play the game how it was supposed to be played, so please, save your preaching for someone else. Bottom line - how the game was SUPPOSED to be played and how the game IS played are two different things.
When the PCs are suficiently powerful there's not teamwork needed, every PC can look out for himself. But when all the PCs are weak, subpar or simply low tier, they still can adventure, because AS A TEAM they are strong and versatile enough.

Mystify

2012-02-01, 06:52 PM

Oh, but the bolded statement IS true. But I know how the game IS played in many groups, and I can't (and don't even core to) force every player in the world to play the game how it was supposed to be played, so please, save your preaching for someone else. Bottom line - how the game was SUPPOSED to be played and how the game IS played are two different things.
When the PCs are suficiently powerful there's not teamwork needed, every PC can look out for himself. But when all the PCs are weak, subpar or simply low tier, they still can adventure, because AS A TEAM they are strong and versatile enough.

The game is meant to be played with wizards and fighters in the same group. Wizard, cleric, fighter, rogue is a typical party that you are intended to use, but everyone is not at an equal tier. Its not even close. So you are countering a way the game wasn't "supposed" to be played, with a different way the game wasn't "supposed" to be played.

Helldog

2012-02-01, 07:02 PM

The game is meant to be played with wizards and fighters in the same group. Wizard, cleric, fighter, rogue is a typical party that you are intended to use, but everyone is not at an equal tier. Its not even close. So you are countering a way the game wasn't "supposed" to be played, with a different way the game wasn't "supposed" to be played.
One does not exclude the other. Heck, it even suports my statement. You see, Wizard and Cleric are so powerful and fighter and Rogue not, because Wizard and Cleric were supposed to share their spells with the rest of the party.
Fighter can't reach a flying opponent? Wizard casts Fly.
The group encounters incorporeal opponents? Wizard or Cleric cast a spell on Fighters and Rogues weapons.
Ect.
Yes, the Wizard and Cleric are more powerful then Fighter or Rogue, but in a team it shouldn't matter, because they aren't fighting each other or competing with each other. They're having the same goal.

Ceaon

2012-02-01, 07:16 PM

One does not exclude the other. Heck, it even suports my statement. You see, Wizard and Cleric are so powerful and fighter and Rogue not, because Wizard and Cleric were supposed to share their spells with the rest of the party.
Fighter can't reach a flying opponent? Wizard casts Fly.
The group encounters incorporeal opponents? Wizard or Cleric cast a spell on Fighters and Rogues weapons.
Ect.
Yes, the Wizard and Cleric are more powerful then Fighter or Rogue, but in a team it shouldn't matter, because they aren't fighting each other or competing with each other. They're having the same goal.

This breaks down when players begin to realise they are better of buffing themselves and should ALL be playing wizards and clerics.

Edit: Not should. Could. Would probably want to. Are more capable when.

TuggyNE

2012-02-01, 07:16 PM

Ignoratio Elenchi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignoratio_elenchi) (Irrelevant Conclusion)?

Special Pleading? The argument that, while games need balance in order to be fun (games where your opponents have an inbuilt advantage over you are not very fun), cooperative games get an exception to this rule. Unless there is a very good, well defined reason to grant such an exception the argument is special pleading.

Yeah, both of these are probably entirely applicable; I was just wondering if there was some specific name, like Oberoni or Stormwind. There should be, I think... :smallwink:

One does not exclude the other. Heck, it even suports my statement. You see, Wizard and Cleric are so powerful and fighter and Rogue not, because Wizard and Cleric were supposed to share their spells with the rest of the party.
Fighter can't reach a flying opponent? Wizard casts Fly.
The group encounters incorporeal opponents? Wizard or Cleric cast a spell on Fighters and Rogues weapons.
Ect.
Yes, the Wizard and Cleric are more powerful then Fighter or Rogue, but in a team it shouldn't matter, because they aren't fighting each other or competing with each other. They're having the same goal.

This analysis falls down in two areas: one, just because some games played in the system fit this pattern does not mean the system as a whole should be designed to require it (see Gnaeus's post for examples of games that don't fit this pattern)*; two, in a specific game it is entirely reasonable for the fighter or rogue to be substituted entirely -- just because they are useful in their niches doesn't mean they cannot be wholly subsumed by other characters that do just as well with fewer resources**.

* "Specific gameplay does not compensate for general system deficiency in the general case" -- this corrects a fallacy closely related to Oberoni, I think.
** "A specialist that is less effective in his specialty than a generalist is no specialist"

Lans

2012-02-01, 07:19 PM

Moving much faster than the party after losing a tiny portion of their HP. What was the point of this?
Much faster? After their speeds been halved?

Last I checked 6 attacks is 153. Even after considering not all will hit that's still 2 fire giant actions = one dead PC even though you've boosted them all the way up to level 14... and there are 4 of them.
What? Did my healer mistake one of the fire giants for his father and try to give it a hug? The giants have to actually move before they attack.

Edit-Raging Barbarian is going to have close to 200hp, a fighter can expect about 150, if an attack misses, then these two are still up.
A vow of poverty monk is going to have about a hundred, but he's going to have an ac of about 30, so no he's not going to die to a pair of full attacks from the giants. Even before variants that likely bump it to tier 4.
The healer can just ready an action to cast heal on who ever they attack.
Warmage might be in trouble if he doesn't walk away briskly after casting ice storm, or if he thought being in the front line was the right place to be.
Ninjas have inviso power
Warlocks the same+flight
Divine minds are like the fighter, but with an astal construct blocking for him.
Soulborn also like the fighter.
So yeah, 2 full attacks from fire giants really isn't going to kill anybody at level 14.

NNescio

2012-02-01, 07:23 PM

Yeah, both of these are probably entirely applicable; I was just wondering if there was some specific name, like Oberoni or Stormwind. There should be, I think... :smallwink:

Well, let's give it one then. Going by how the previous fallacies are named after the posters who made those observations... we'll call this the Tuggyne Fallacy. :smallwink:

Helldog

2012-02-01, 07:27 PM

This analysis falls down in two areas: one, just because some games played in the system fit this pattern does not mean the system as a whole should be designed to require it (see Gnaeus's post for examples of games that don't fit this pattern)*; two, in a specific game it is entirely reasonable for the fighter or rogue to be substituted entirely -- just because they are useful in their niches doesn't mean they cannot be wholly subsumed by other characters that do just as well with fewer resources**.
My statement is based on a simple fact - you play D&D with a group (PvP or solo games are a minority, that's not what the game was designed for). The PCs are a team. So obviously the game was supposed to be cooperative.

And the fact that Fighter and Rogue can be substituted doesn't matter. Not everyone is willing to just play some other class that they don't want to play just because it's better. I for example don't play casters (much) because I don't like to play casters.

** "A specialist that is less effective in his specialty than a generalist is no specialist"
But the casters are generalists and still better than mundane specialists just because the devs failed at creating the game.

TuggyNE

2012-02-01, 08:05 PM

Well, let's give it one then. Going by how the previous fallacies are named after the posters who made those observations... we'll call this the Tuggyne Fallacy. :smallwink:

Heh. :smallbiggrin:

My statement is based on a simple fact - you play D&D with a group (PvP or solo games are a minority, that's not what the game was designed for). The PCs are a team. So obviously the game was supposed to be cooperative.

And the fact that Fighter and Rogue can be substituted doesn't matter. Not everyone is willing to just play some other class that they don't want to play just because it's better. I for example don't play casters (much) because I don't like to play casters.

Quite true, but this is less of an argument that the system is fine, than it is an argument that the system has a problem: it forces a subtle and entirely unnecessary choice between effectiveness and desired role. It is supposed to be a cooperative game, and it is entirely reasonable to expect "powerful warriors and mercenaries" and "skilled wealth redistribution specialists" to be effective in cooperating. 3.5 does not entirely meet these expectations.

But the casters are generalists and still better than mundane specialists just because the devs failed at creating the game.

Indeed, that was my exact point. Rogues and Fighters are not good specialists, as designed.

Polarity Shift

2012-02-01, 09:22 PM

Just to clarify; are you saying that you can't switch out feast or classes to make a challenge easier? Or that you can't use easier monsters against a party? Cause if so, I'm pretty sure you can.

We're talking about stock enemies. Stock enemies have no class levels for the most part and in none of the situations mentioned here, and they already have bad feats which I made no mention of changing. They're already a low bar. Made lower by basic, iconic enemies such as giants instead of something stronger like a dragon. And the low tier classes still cannot clear that bar.

A party is formed to have all the fundamental bases covered. But you think a character isn't good enough unless they have all the bases covered on their own. A single party member being knocked unconscious or hit with a status effect? Obviously means we're going to lose the battle and that character's going to die.

I know that a character isn't good enough if there isn't a high chance they survive normal fights. As it is bad saves means your entire party is wide open to being one two punched for the kill, so individual deaths are extremely common. When you die in 3 hits and can't prevent this you either win before you get hit 3 times or you lose. Notice the difference between what I say and what you say that I say.

Nope. Higher CR fights give greater rewards. If a fight is the appropriate CR, but more optimmized, you get the same rewards, but the fight is harder.

Even if you do shift things in that way and you shouldn't twist my words, the bit about more wealth still stands.

You of course.

I said nothing of the sort.

There's nothing forcing the giants to focus fire on one PC.

So now in addition to picking one of the weakest enemies possible you have to play them stupid as well by not even using the most basic of tactics? In what way does this not prove my point?

Good for you. But not everyone can or cares to do it. and stop with the rude comments.

Not wanting to is one thing. Not wanting to and blaming everyone else for your own actions is quite another.

Much faster? After their speeds been halved?

Half until they move out of it... so not far. The Warmage has wasted his one chance entirely.

What? Did my healer mistake one of the fire giants for his father and try to give it a hug? The giants have to actually move before they attack.

They can get to someone. Unless you are conceding the Fighter and Rogue are completely sitting this one out? Because they're not dying to 6d6 any time soon.

Lans

2012-02-01, 09:37 PM

Half until they move out of it... so not far. The Warmage has wasted his one chance entirely.
So a distance of more than their movement speed isn't far? I'm assuming their in armor

They can get to someone. Unless you are conceding the Fighter and Rogue are completely sitting this one out? Because they're not dying to 6d6 any time soon.
But does it happen on the first turn? You stated that
And unless you can one round all of them, they go and murder the Warmage and the Healer leaving you with a 0% chance of walking away from this. The fighter can still shoot a bow, or maybe he picked up WRT and give the warmage another turn to do a maximized cone of cold, the rogue could be a scout, even if he's not he can still add a few points of damage. The current strat is being based around a third level spell after all, I think it can be kept up for a while.

Edit-Not to mention everybody in the party has an effective AC of 22+equipment+feats+class abilities thanks to the healer. The fire giants full attacks are only going to deal about 53 pts of damage on average, if you stripped the party of anything close to normal WBL.

Helldog

2012-02-01, 09:38 PM

Even if you do shift things in that way and you shouldn't twist my words, the bit about more wealth still stands.
I shifted nothing. I wasn't talking about lowering or increasing CR/level of enemies, it was you who assumed that and made arguments against that.
Where does that more wealth come from? Air? The CR is still the same. You give the enemies no more items than they deserve based on their CR. The CR is level appropriate, so the wealth is also level appropriate.

I said nothing of the sort.
Maybe not, but your whole argumentation suggests that that is what you say or think.
You say that a PC can't have a weakness, that he can't depend on another PC to cover that weakness, because otherwise the whole team will get killed. Which is bollocks. Not only are lower tier/unoptimized PCs totally able to play normally, but also the DM can totally scale things down to accomodate for his PCs shortcomings, so there should be no problem.

So now in addition to picking one of the weakest enemies possible you have to play them stupid as well by not even using the most basic of tactics? In what way does this not prove my point?
In that way that you insist that low tier/unoptimized teams can't play. But they can.

Not wanting to is one thing. Not wanting to and blaming everyone else for your own actions is quite another.
What are you talking about? Who is blaming who? :smallconfused:

Polarity Shift

2012-02-02, 12:04 PM

So a distance of more than their movement speed isn't far? I'm assuming their in armor

You still haven't explained how you are doing that, keeping in mind they are only slowed as long as they are in the ice field.

But does it happen on the first turn? You stated that The fighter can still shoot a bow, or maybe he picked up WRT and give the warmage another turn to do a maximized cone of cold, the rogue could be a scout, even if he's not he can still add a few points of damage. The current strat is being based around a third level spell after all, I think it can be kept up for a while.

Sure. The Fighter shoots a bow. It does even less damage than the Ice Storm. The giants start complaining about annoying insects.

If you're going the WRT nuke approach why not do that from the beginning, instead of wasting a turn with Ice Storm? Not to mention he's trying to play at being a Warblade lite at this point, and I've already mentioned Warmage goes first and one rounds everything to be the only option that'd save them. Of course that Cone of Cold isn't a OHKO, and he's just used a 1/day ability on a normal fight.

If the Rogue (or Fighter for that matter) go anywhere near them they get surrounded and pounded. Same is true for the others, but they don't have to get near them to do anything, whereas the Fighter and Rogue are helpless outside of melee range.

Edit-Not to mention everybody in the party has an effective AC of 22+equipment+feats+class abilities thanks to the healer. The fire giants full attacks are only going to deal about 53 pts of damage on average, if you stripped the party of anything close to normal WBL.

And why is that? That also is not how averages work.

I shifted nothing. I wasn't talking about lowering or increasing CR/level of enemies, it was you who assumed that and made arguments against that.
Where does that more wealth come from? Air? The CR is still the same. You give the enemies no more items than they deserve based on their CR. The CR is level appropriate, so the wealth is also level appropriate.

You did shift things. You said stronger parties get harder fights. You then changed that to mean stronger but not higher CR.

I've already explained where the extra wealth comes from.

Maybe not, but your whole argumentation suggests that that is what you say or think.
You say that a PC can't have a weakness, that he can't depend on another PC to cover that weakness, because otherwise the whole team will get killed. Which is bollocks. Not only are lower tier/unoptimized PCs totally able to play normally, but also the DM can totally scale things down to accomodate for his PCs shortcomings, so there should be no problem.

This is a perfect example of why weak parties are non starters. Not only because of all the illustrations I provided in which they die repeatedly to things they should be able to make die repeatedly, but this paragraph right up there. In that one paragraph you both twisted my position again after spelling it out for you again, but you then turned around and admitted outright they cannot deal with even the easiest of enemies and insisted they be nerfed even more just to make the weak party feel good about themselves.

In that way that you insist that low tier/unoptimized teams can't play. But they can.

"I'm a great boxer. As long as my opponent never throws a punch I'll win."

Except the premise of boxing is that two fighters get into a ring, so you'd better be able to get hit and hit back harder.

Likewise, D&D enemies will focus fire. You'd better be able to deal with that.

What are you talking about? Who is blaming who? :smallconfused:

You, at several different points have said things to the effect of weak parties are fine if the DM is doing their job or if someone else picks up your slack, among others. All of these involve blaming others for the faults of your own character. Alternately you could make a character capable of playing the game you signed up for and stand on your own merits without needing a personal babysitter to manage and protect you.

And remember, we're still talking basic stock enemies, weak and nothing special at all, and yet still capable of soundly thrashing the low tier party. If it were me those Fire Giants would have Power Attack, Knockback, Steadfast Determination and Improved Initiative + prereqs, and they'd simply play pinball with the PCs for an easy 4-0 victory for the Giants since all they have to do is kill the Warmage (who is one of the few casters that is actually weak defensively) to be assured of automatic victory. None of the others can touch them and if they try they die.

Z3ro

2012-02-02, 12:18 PM

You make lots of assumptions that are nowhere universal regarding how people do and should play the game. For example:

Likewise, D&D enemies will focus fire. You'd better be able to deal with that.

Why will they focus fire? That's not in their descriptions. And it's not even terribly realistic. But more to the point, there's absolutely nothing forcing a DM to use these tactics. Suggesting that someone is playing wrong because they don't use the most optomized option at every turn is simply incorrect.

None of the others can touch them and if they try they die.

Why would you assume this? A decently optomized fighter (to say nothing of an ubercharger) at that level should be able to drop at least one giant in a single round of attacks, as should the rogue.

Mystify

2012-02-02, 12:26 PM

Z3ro

2012-02-02, 12:41 PM

Intelligent enemies are supposed to use actual tactics. Focus fire is a very basic, effective tactic. Fire giants have an int of 10, they should be focusing fire. If you can't stand up to even the most basic of tactics, something is wrong.

I didn't say it wasn't the best tactic, only that they don't literally have to. And in reality, focus fire in melee is generally a bad idea, as getting injured usually ends a fight.

Mystify

2012-02-02, 12:49 PM

I didn't say it wasn't the best tactic, only that they don't literally have to. And in reality, focus fire in melee is generally a bad idea, as getting injured usually ends a fight.
In reality, it is best to bring down opponents as fast as possible, since that suppresses their ability to return fire. It just so happens that 1 hit will drop people in most circumstances, so you can drop your opponents fastest by targeting as many as possible. The HP system alters that dynamic, but you can't say they will be using tactics for real world situations that are based on premises inapplicable to their world.

Technically, they don't even have to attack. They could stand there staring at the sky. Then a level 1 commoner could sit there and slowly crit them to death. It is perfectly reasonable for them to attack you, as it is perfectly reasonable for them to concentrate their fire, and hence you have to assume they will in a theoretical comparison.

Z3ro

2012-02-02, 01:01 PM

In reality, it is best to bring down opponents as fast as possible, since that suppresses their ability to return fire. It just so happens that 1 hit will drop people in most circumstances, so you can drop your opponents fastest by targeting as many as possible. The HP system alters that dynamic, but you can't say they will be using tactics for real world situations that are based on premises inapplicable to their world.

Technically, they don't even have to attack. They could stand there staring at the sky. Then a level 1 commoner could sit there and slowly crit them to death. It is perfectly reasonable for them to attack you, as it is perfectly reasonable for them to concentrate their fire, and hence you have to assume they will in a theoretical comparison.

No, you don't have to assume it. You can, and many people play that way. But not everyone does, so you can't claim monsters will always do something; DMs decide how monsters act, not monsters.

Mystify

2012-02-02, 01:17 PM

No, you don't have to assume it. You can, and many people play that way. But not everyone does, so you can't claim monsters will always do something; DMs decide how monsters act, not monsters.
By that same logic, you can't assume the monsters will attack. If you are going to assume that enemies never use any tactics, then you are saying that the characters only hold up against enemies that are dumb as rocks and are played horribly. That is not a functional game, that is a mangled mess.

Curious

2012-02-02, 01:21 PM

Lans

2012-02-02, 01:22 PM

You still haven't explained how you are doing that, keeping in mind they are only slowed as long as they are in the ice field.

Do what? Cast a spell thats a third level spell on your list when you have obtained 7th level spells?

Sure. The Fighter shoots a bow. It does even less damage than the Ice Storm. The giants start complaining about annoying insects.

Meh, d10+1+d6+6 is 16, with an aptitude bow and knowledge devotion that could be another 11 points, and about a 20 or so to hit, ice storm does 21.

If you're going the WRT nuke approach why not do that from the beginning, instead of wasting a turn with Ice Storm? Not to mention he's trying to play at being a Warblade lite at this point, and I've already mentioned Warmage goes first and one rounds everything to be the only option that'd save them. Of course that Cone of Cold isn't a OHKO, and he's just used a 1/day ability on a normal fight. Its not about 1 rounding them, its about extending the engagement time beyond 1 round you said was necessary to prevent deaths.

If the Rogue (or Fighter for that matter) go anywhere near them they get surrounded and pounded. Same is true for the others, but they don't have to get near them to do anything, whereas the Fighter and Rogue are helpless outside of melee range.

Your assuming that the fighter and rogue are not built for ranged combat.

But lets say they are. The party gets buffed by greater luminous armor, giving a starting point of about 22 AC, give the fighter 16/14/14/14/8/8 stat alighment. So 24 AC, lets say he spends a quarter of his wealth on AC, giving him a +3 shield, +2 natural armor, and +2 deflection. So a modest AC of 32, at the cost of 25k, we still have about 13k to spend, so add in boots of speed for 33. A flanking giant needs to roll an 11 to hit him, he effectively has a 50%, 75%, and 95% miss chances. So a full attack from a giant is worth .8 of a hit, 4 giants means 3.2 hits or 81.6. The fighter should have about (5.5+4)*13+14 hp or a 137hp.

The fighter then makes a full attack on one of the giants for 21/21/16/11 for d10+d6+14PA+6WS+2+3 enhancement+9strength or about 43 damage per hit for an average of .95/.95/.7/.45 3.05 hits. Leaving a giant with 13 hp, unless it got hit with an ice storm. In which case its probably dead.

Healer uses reach spell on a heal, close wounds, cure mass serious, and the fighter lives another round. Yay team work. The rogue could throw nets or something to help.

And why is that? That also is not how averages work.So you don't take hit chances into account when calculating damage?

Wealth spent by fighter 36 on defensive, 32 on con and strength boosts, 30 on 2 weapons and a couple crystals, So about 100/150k

Feats weapon focus line-5 feats, knowledge devotion-3 feats, PA, so 9/14 feats.

Z3ro

2012-02-02, 01:27 PM

By that same logic, you can't assume the monsters will attack. If you are going to assume that enemies never use any tactics, then you are saying that the characters only hold up against enemies that are dumb as rocks and are played horribly. That is not a functional game, that is a mangled mess.

No, you can't assume enemies will attack, or use smart tactics, at all. This isn't a video game; the DM has absolute discretion how monsters act. It's a feature, not a bug.

And fighting dumb enemies is still a game; maybe not one you'd want to play, but a game nonetheless. One of my most memorable campaigns had the main villians as a barely functional Orc; and yes, we were somehow still able to play, despite the bad guys being dumb.

Mystify

2012-02-02, 01:40 PM

No, you can't assume enemies will attack, or use smart tactics, at all. This isn't a video game; the DM has absolute discretion how monsters act. It's a feature, not a bug.

And fighting dumb enemies is still a game; maybe not one you'd want to play, but a game nonetheless. One of my most memorable campaigns had the main villians as a barely functional Orc; and yes, we were somehow still able to play, despite the bad guys being dumb.

but if your enemies have to be dumb for the characters to function, there is a problem. You can't assume they won't be using good tactics, and hence you have to consider the case of them using good tactics when analyzing the viability of a class. It would be like fighting a monster with a really powerful attack. You can beat the monster, as long as it doesn't use that attack. Sure, its possible for the DM to simply not use that attack against you, but you can't claim the character is viable against that threat if that needs to be the case.

Actually, you can't always assume monsters are going to attack, because it is a roleplaying game and it is entirely possible to bypass monsters by means other than combat.

Once you start slicing at them, its pretty much assumed they will fight back. Bypassing combat is not what I'm talking about.

Polarity Shift

2012-02-02, 01:48 PM

Why will they focus fire? That's not in their descriptions. And it's not even terribly realistic. But more to the point, there's absolutely nothing forcing a DM to use these tactics. Suggesting that someone is playing wrong because they don't use the most optomized option at every turn is simply incorrect.

They are doing HP damage. Anything with a non null Int knows to focus its attacks on one person at a time as otherwise, they do nothing to slow them down. At this point you have easy, basic enemies with zero tactics (as opposed to the absolute minimum of tactics) which is a testament to said character's nonability to deal with encounters.

I don't think the PHB mentions there being a sun in the sky either. Some things are just taken for granted.

The most optimized option would have you fighting Pouncing, Whirling Frenzying Leap Attacking giants. When they're done with you you will feel like a Goomba, literally and figuratively. Notice how what I described in no way resembles that.

Some basic improvements give you Knockbacking giants with much better saves. I give them about 5:1 odds against the weak party.

Why would you assume this? A decently optomized fighter (to say nothing of an ubercharger) at that level should be able to drop at least one giant in a single round of attacks, as should the rogue.

First, it's obvious from context that weak party not only means low tier but poorly designed as well from the way he describes it. Second, even if the first point isn't true... he charges one, and if he's lucky kills it. The other three stomp him into the ground, because suicide charges are exactly that vs multiple enemies. If he's not smart the AoOs kill him before he even gets to try.

Intelligent enemies are supposed to use actual tactics. Focus fire is a very basic, effective tactic. Fire giants have an int of 10, they should be focusing fire. If you can't stand up to even the most basic of tactics, something is wrong.

Thank you Mystify for explaining that mystery to him. :D

Jokes aside, even animals focus fire. After all if animals are attacking you it's either to kill and eat someone or to drive them off, and in both cases ganging up is going to be more effective, so they will be instinctually compelled to do that.

By that same logic, you can't assume the monsters will attack. If you are going to assume that enemies never use any tactics, then you are saying that the characters only hold up against enemies that are dumb as rocks and are played horribly. That is not a functional game, that is a mangled mess.

And is the core of my argument. You have to assume a reasonable baseline here. Even with the low end baseline I selected, they just don't clear the bar. And the best arguments in support of me are the ones against me.

Do what? Cast a spell thats a third level spell on your list when you have obtained 7th level spells?

How you are keeping out of their range.

Meh, d10+1+d6+6 is 16, with an aptitude bow and knowledge devotion that could be another 11 points, and about a 20 or so to hit, ice storm does 21.

10% off of 1 of them. There are 4 of them. If the Fighter instead skipped his turn, you'd be hard pressed to notice the difference.

Its not about 1 rounding them, its about extending the engagement time beyond 1 round you said was necessary to prevent deaths.

Which you don't do.

Your assuming that the fighter and rogue are not built for ranged combat.

A reasonable assumption given that it is non viable, especially for a Rogue.

But lets say they are. The party gets buffed by greater luminous armor, giving a starting point of about 22 AC, give the fighter 16/14/14/14/8/8 stat alighment. So 24 AC, lets say he spends a quarter of his wealth on AC, giving him a +3 shield, +2 natural armor, and +2 deflection. So a modest AC of 32, at the cost of 25k, we still have about 13k to spend, so add in boots of speed for 33. A flanking giant needs to roll an 11 to hit him, he effectively has a 50%, 75%, and 95% miss chances. So a full attack from a giant is worth .8 of a hit, 4 giants means 3.2 hits or 81.6. The fighter should have about (5.5+4)*13+14 hp or a 137hp.

This is not how averages work. And a sword and board Fighter? Here I was assuming he was at least trying.

So you don't take hit chances into account when calculating damage?

Here is how averages work:

You either get hit or you don't. There is no half a hit. So you determine how many hits it takes to drop someone, and then you determine how likely that is to happen. Now you have about 12 attacks a round, every round, and it takes half of those or less to kill someone.

So while the dishonest statistics make them seem perfectly safe, what actually is happening is they have a high chance to die in every single fight.

No, you can't assume enemies will attack, or use smart tactics, at all. This isn't a video game; the DM has absolute discretion how monsters act. It's a feature, not a bug.

And fighting dumb enemies is still a game; maybe not one you'd want to play, but a game nonetheless. One of my most memorable campaigns had the main villians as a barely functional Orc; and yes, we were somehow still able to play, despite the bad guys being dumb.

I find it interesting you go directly from saying you can't assume enemies will do the thing that makes them not like a video game before stating that it is not a video game.

In a video game you could assume enemies will be dumb and spread out their attacks, because AI scripts are not as smart as average people. Fire Giants however are, and any DM worth anything will portray them accurately.

Z3ro

2012-02-02, 01:52 PM

but if your enemies have to be dumb for the characters to function, there is a problem. You can't assume they won't be using good tactics, and hence you have to consider the case of them using good tactics when analyzing the viability of a class. It would be like fighting a monster with a really powerful attack. You can beat the monster, as long as it doesn't use that attack. Sure, its possible for the DM to simply not use that attack against you, but you can't claim the character is viable against that threat if that needs to be the case.

I think you and I are talking at cross-purposes here. I'm mostly referring to the actions of the DM, and what they can or can't do to accomadate specific player types. You are talking about viability of classes, were viability is defined as defeating level-appropriate challenges (a common enough definition).

Mystify

2012-02-02, 01:53 PM

Jokes aside, even animals focus fire. After all if animals are attacking you it's either to kill and eat someone or to drive them off, and in both cases ganging up is going to be more effective, so they will be instinctually compelled to do that.

Indeed. Thats the entire point of a wolf pack, focus fire on bringing down as single target. If int 2 wolves can execute group tactics, the int 10 giants certainly can.

Mystify

2012-02-02, 01:54 PM

I think you and I are talking at cross-purposes here. I'm mostly referring to the actions of the DM, and what they can or can't do to accomadate specific player types. You are talking about viability of classes, were viability is defined as defeating level-appropriate challenges (a common enough definition).
If the DM has to fix it, its broken.

Z3ro

2012-02-02, 01:58 PM

The most optimized option would have you fighting Pouncing, Whirling Frenzying Leap Attacking giants. When they're done with you you will feel like a Goomba, literally and figuratively. Notice how what I described in no way resembles that.

The funny thing is, I tend to assume DM and players play at about the same OP level. A fighter, using those same tactics (which I don't consider particularly optomized) would kill a giant just as quick. A party of four fighters, going first, would stomp that party of four giants in one round, the same as the giants if they went first. How are fighters unable to defeat this challenge again?

Also, a weak, low-op, low tier party wouldn't be fighting four giants, they'd be fighting one CR approriate giant. A challenge such as that is much more reasonable, given the type of opponent. Change up the enemy (but not the CR), and the fight plays out very differently.

Polarity Shift

2012-02-02, 02:03 PM

Reposting this since the thread moved ahead after my edit.

Do what? Cast a spell thats a third level spell on your list when you have obtained 7th level spells?

How you are keeping out of their range.

Meh, d10+1+d6+6 is 16, with an aptitude bow and knowledge devotion that could be another 11 points, and about a 20 or so to hit, ice storm does 21.

10% off of 1 of them. There are 4 of them. If the Fighter instead skipped his turn, you'd be hard pressed to notice the difference.

Its not about 1 rounding them, its about extending the engagement time beyond 1 round you said was necessary to prevent deaths.

Which you don't do.

Your assuming that the fighter and rogue are not built for ranged combat.

A reasonable assumption given that it is non viable, especially for a Rogue.

But lets say they are. The party gets buffed by greater luminous armor, giving a starting point of about 22 AC, give the fighter 16/14/14/14/8/8 stat alighment. So 24 AC, lets say he spends a quarter of his wealth on AC, giving him a +3 shield, +2 natural armor, and +2 deflection. So a modest AC of 32, at the cost of 25k, we still have about 13k to spend, so add in boots of speed for 33. A flanking giant needs to roll an 11 to hit him, he effectively has a 50%, 75%, and 95% miss chances. So a full attack from a giant is worth .8 of a hit, 4 giants means 3.2 hits or 81.6. The fighter should have about (5.5+4)*13+14 hp or a 137hp.

This is not how averages work. And a sword and board Fighter? Here I was assuming he was at least trying.

So you don't take hit chances into account when calculating damage?

Here is how averages work:

You either get hit or you don't. There is no half a hit. So you determine how many hits it takes to drop someone, and then you determine how likely that is to happen. Now you have about 12 attacks a round, every round, and it takes half of those or less to kill someone.

So while the dishonest statistics make them seem perfectly safe, what actually is happening is they have a high chance to die in every single fight.

No, you can't assume enemies will attack, or use smart tactics, at all. This isn't a video game; the DM has absolute discretion how monsters act. It's a feature, not a bug.

And fighting dumb enemies is still a game; maybe not one you'd want to play, but a game nonetheless. One of my most memorable campaigns had the main villians as a barely functional Orc; and yes, we were somehow still able to play, despite the bad guys being dumb.

I find it interesting you go directly from saying you can't assume enemies will do the thing that makes them not like a video game before stating that it is not a video game.

In a video game you could assume enemies will be dumb and spread out their attacks, because AI scripts are not as smart as average people. Fire Giants however are, and any DM worth anything will portray them accurately.

The funny thing is, I tend to assume DM and players play at about the same OP level. A fighter, using those same tactics (which I don't consider particularly optomized) would kill a giant just as quick. A party of four fighters, going first, would stomp that party of four giants in one round, the same as the giants if they went first. How are fighters unable to defeat this challenge again?

What same tactics? The ones that require Barbarian levels among other things? Even then, you admit your only recourse is to win init or die.

Also, a weak, low-op, low tier party wouldn't be fighting four giants, they'd be fighting one CR approriate giant. A challenge such as that is much more reasonable, given the type of opponent. Change up the enemy (but not the CR), and the fight plays out very differently.

So instead of fighting the 4 CR 10s... they get a CR 14. That actually does make it easier in the sense there's less total damage flying about. However it doesn't suddenly make them able to win, since they have to struggle vs mooks they have no chance vs something of their own level.