A modest proposal to issues of balance.

[Beowulf DW]

This is merely a thought that entered my head recently regarding the oft-talked about issue of balance in...well...most systems. Feel free to criticize, mock and verbally tear to pieces, as you see fit.

In most systems, especially 3.5 and Pathfinder, issues of balance tend to arise. Horror stories of CoDzillas abound (I personally have played with one such min/maxer and the group I'm in has effectively exiled him). I don't often hear of issues involving balance from the Exalted crowd, though I suspect that when everyone's awesome, no one really notices or cares how much more awesome someone else may or may not be. D&D 4.0 attempted to solve this dilemma by deciding that everyone would have special powers, not just the casters. However, as we learned from Disney's The Incredibles when everyone's super, no one is super.

And so attempts at balance are ignored or abandoned to preserve the essential feeling of each class. I would like to propose an approach to balance which could help solve some of the issues underlying the balance debate, that is to say the issue of letting each member of a party contribute and feel important, and the issue of preserving the feel of each class.

Rock Paper Scissors. Pokemon. That is my proposal. A system that relies on each class countering one or two other classes. Those of you who have played Pokemon know the importance of making sure each member of your team is of a different type, so that one Fire-type, or Psychic-type, or whatever, can't demolish most of your team. Why not take this approach with parties of PCs?

I think that this approach would allow each class to contribute, while ensuring that no one class can handle any situation on its own (I'm looking at you, Druids...). This would also avoid the quagmire that 4th Edition found itself in: Every class feels the same. Just as a rock, a sheet of paper, and a pair of scissors are completely different items, useful for very different purposes, so to could each class be different.

Well, what do you guys and gals think? Am I off my rocker? Or am I on to something?

[DaMullet]

I clicked on this thread expecting it to be satirical in nature... Oh well.

I think that your proposed system would make a well-balanced and good table experience, but I also don't think that the present DnD paradigm would support it very well at all. You'd essentially be starting from scratch to design the classes.

[Beowulf DW]

I clicked on this thread expecting it to be satirical in nature... Oh well.

I think that your proposed system would make a well-balanced and good table experience, but I also don't think that the present DnD paradigm would support it very well at all. You'd essentially be starting from scratch to design the classes.

Well, I can hardly compare to Swift as far as satire is concerned, so why even try. Sorry to disappoint you, but what did you expect? A long winded essay telling you to eat your character sheets?

My intention was merely to put forth the idea so that others would act on it. I don't even know if this has been tried before or not, but I think it's worth a shot at the very least.

[Grinner]

I see no problem with this proposal. In fact, this is the de facto method for balancing RTSes. A number of MMORPGs also use this method.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

The problem with balance is not, as many people seem to believe, that a wizard can blow up a fighter in single combat. The problem is that there are several aspects of the game in which a class can contribute:

1) Class vs. class (PCs fighting a classed NPC, where having inter-class balance is important)
2) Class vs. monster (PCs fighting monsters, where having the ability to counter monsters is important)
3) Class vs. dungeon (PCs facing static obstacles, where having a toolbox of abilities is important)
4) Class vs. world (PCs facing dynamic obstacles, where having wide-ranging abilities is important)
5) More; you can probably break things up more, add in more aspects, etc., but I'll stick with these for now.

As an example, let's take the Red Hand of Doom adventure module. The PCs are trying to stop a horde of bad guys who worship Tiamat and have dragons, pretty iconic setup. This module has instances of each aspect multiple times, all of which are important:
1) Class vs. class: the enemy has several cultists with levels in caster classes, and the main bad guy is a classed half-dragon.
2) Class vs. monster: the module has dragons, hydras, and other dangerous critters.
3) Class vs. dungeon: there are some nice set pieces such as bridges over chasms, swamps, and such that serve as obstacles or allow for getting around encounters without fighting.
4) Class vs. world: there's a time limit on the adventure as the horde masses for an attack, and the locations are all spread out, requiring a bunch of exploration and travel.

So, what does each class bring to this adventure? A fighter can handle class vs. class and class vs. monster, as long as he has ranged weapons, reach weapons, good AC, etc. to survive. He doesn't bring anything much to the table on the other two, though, with his lack of skills and non-combat features. A rogue can handle the same two the fighter can, but can also do class vs. dungeon pretty well with his skills (Use Rope + Climb to get over the chasm, Swim + Move Silently + Hide to sneak through the swamp, UMD if nothing else to handle some obstacles); he doesn't have much for class vs. world unless he leans heavily on UMD or focuses on Survival and such. A wizard can handle all four well, because on top of having plenty of combat tricks (both fighting and avoiding it) and utility tricks for the first three, he has speed-increasing magic, flight magic, and teleportation to get the party from point A to point B fast, he has charm X and animate dead to turn enemies against each other and increase the forces of good, and so forth to handle class vs. world obstacles.

So a rock-paper-scissors system really wouldn't do anything to help balance. If you make fighter/rogue/wizard the RPS setup, that doesn't do anything to change the fact that fighters do nothing out of combat and wizards do everything. If you make magic/martial/monster the RPS setup, that makes fights nice and dynamic and solves the "wizard > fighter and wizard > monster" problem, but still makes the fighter sit out during non-combat scenarios. If you make combat/utility/exploration the RPS, that would mean the fighter does combat, the wizard does out of combat, and the rogue does a bit of both; if the wizard can't contribute much in combat, that's (A) boring for the wizard player during combat, which just flips the problem around, and (B) disastrous for the other PCs who'd rely on buffs, debuffs, and CC in combat. Any way you slice it, RPS setups really don't work outside of the highly constrained environment of an arena or in RTS/FPG/MMORPG video games.

[Manateee]

Balance issues arise in tactically-focused RPGs. This is a meaningful distinction, because it rules out about half of the industry.

Anyway, I disagree with the proposal. Continuing to use Pokemon as an example, Pokemon is a game where optimal play involves the one character with a relevant specialization taking the spotlight in an encounter while everyone else plays tiddlywinks on the side. This is poor RPG design.

Players have to be involved in the same scenes to be engaged in those scenes. That means their spotlight time and character abilities have to overlap to a certain degree, which is the situation you propose to rule out.

That said, the concrete implementation of your proposal is unclear. It might help to express it in exact terms terms. Because the kind of design you advocate looks like it's exactly what D&D 3e set out to achieve - and that game's the bad example that you're trying to fix.

[Nero24200]

Well the problem comes in that pokemon, from a tactical point of view, is pretty boring. If your opponent pulls out a fire pokemen and you have a water one out..well, luck and tactics don't matter, you will just win.

If a D'n'D party consisted of that all that would really happen is that the party members would takes turns at dominating the encounters. In a fight against a diverse group of NPC's would just be a mess, with the "fire-type" constantly moving around to strike at the "grass-type" while they do the same for the "water-type" etc.

And well really the main premise of balance isn't that bad - the party have a variety of skills which work together to overcome a challenge - Martial characters act as meat shields while dealing consistant damage, skill monkeys handle non-combat scenarios (but with some built-in combat usage), divine spellcasters buff/heal and arcane mages are the burst-damage dealers with added utility. The premise itself isn't bad, it's just that the execution doesn't work out as well as people would like.

Don't get me wrong, a smartly-made rock/paper/sissors type system could work, but the idea itself isn't automatically better than the current system (and is even in some areas worse).

[Raum]

Well, I can hardly compare to Swift as far as satire is concerned, so why even try. Sorry to disappoint you, but what did you expect? A long winded essay telling you to eat your character sheets?Yes! That would have been great!


My intention was merely to put forth the idea so that others would act on it. I don't even know if this has been tried before or not, but I think it's worth a shot at the very least.I think it has been done to some degree. One issue you run into is making your characters too one-dimensional though. A second is, it's really oriented for a PvP style game. Manatee pointed out a third.

Then there's the issue PODL raised - what is "balance"? Personally, I think issues of relative combat power are less important than "narrative time". Do the PCs (or classes) get the same amount of emphasis in the unfolding story? Or does one take center stage and force the others to the sideline? That what I want to "balance".

[Kalmageddon]

You can't really make a counter to magic, which by it's own definition is able to do anything. Even if you make a class immune to magic it's not a counter, because you could still beat it pretty easily with indirect magic (move terrain to make a bunch of boulders fall on the head of said class, telekinesis to throw stuff at it, etc...).

Magic is broken at its core, the only thing that in my opinion comes close to a counter to wizards and low hp magical classes is a stealth character with sneak attack, but even then with magic you can make yourself immune to criticals and thus sneak attacks without a problem.

Let's just face it, D&D is a game too large to be balanced, what matters is not balance but fun, every class should be fun to play regardless of its effectiveness, this isn't always true but it's an issue worth its own thread.

[Grinner]

You could try making magic dangerous to the caster. You know, risk and reward.

[Beowulf DW]

Yes! That would have been great!

Oh. Well I'll work on it. No promises, though.



Let's just face it, D&D is a game too large to be balanced, what matters is not balance but fun, every class should be fun to play regardless of its effectiveness, this isn't always true but it's an issue worth its own thread.

I didn't really think that this could solve the issue, it merely struck me as an approach that hadn't been attempted for a game like D&D. One should never be afraid to experiment. You never know what you might learn.

[DeltaEmil]

D&D 4.0 attempted to solve this dilemma by deciding that everyone would have special powers, not just the casters. However, as we learned from Disney's The Incredibles when everyone's super, no one is super.This tells me everything I need to know about how much the thread opener played or really read the D&D 4th edition-books and did not simply rely on third-party opinion based on hearsay.

What you can say is that D&D 4th edition toned down casters heavily so that they aren't the magic-using god-kings that D&D 3rd edition (3.0 and 3.5) were, which might not be a method of balancing that some like (after all, playing the superswiss-army knife is popular enough).

The first thing you must always first decide is how strong magic actually is, AND IF it should be actually stronger in solving problems instead of simply being another way.

[valadil]

Well the problem comes in that pokemon, from a tactical point of view, is pretty boring. If your opponent pulls out a fire pokemen and you have a water one out..well, luck and tactics don't matter, you will just win.


So I'm not actually familiar with pokemon (I'm too old), but I don't think this would be the case in D&D. The reason being that you have multiple PCs on the board at once. If your part is 2 rocks, 1 paper, & 1 scissors and you find yourselves ambushed by 3 papers, 2 rocks, & 1 paper, positioning your party to have advantage while avoiding disadvantage becomes interesting, provided there's enough terrain to keep everyone from clustering up in the middle of the map.

I think 4e tried to do this, but it didn't really work out. IMO there were too many types of NPCs.

I could see this idea working, although I'd probably go for more than 3 types. I don't see it fitting in D&D, unless you're running a specific type of campaign.

[DeltaEmil]

I think 4e tried to do this, but it didn't really work out. IMO there were too many types of NPCs.What do you mean with NPCs? The monster roles (brute, soldier, controller and so on)? These things are only monster tactic reminders for the gm, saying how the individual monsters might be used most effectively or thematically appropriate.

[valadil]

What do you mean with NPCs? The monster roles (brute, soldier, controller and so on)? These things are only monster tactic reminders for the gm, saying how the individual monsters might be used most effectively or thematically appropriate.

Yep, that's what I meant. I feel like they could have worked as the OP described if there weren't quite so many and they lined up with PC roles.

[Urpriest]

Yep, that's what I meant. I feel like they could have worked as the OP described if there weren't quite so many and they lined up with PC roles.

There still is an extent to which they do, really. You send the strikers after monsters with more fragile roles while the defender hangs out with the high-damage monsters, the controller tries to neuter the more annoying types of monsters, and the leader just makes everyone better.

This also illustrates that what's really going on in 4e is still the concept of roles. Rock Paper Scissors makes sense for a competitive game like Pokemon or Starcraft, but D&D and similar RPGs are cooperative. Instead of a situation where everyone's talents are sometimes essential and sometimes useless, it's better to have situations where everyone has a different role to play and a different chance to shine. This doesn't require homogenization of players (4e classes have very different feels to them if you pay attention to the feats and not just to the base chassis), but there is an extent to which it requires homogenization of encounters, which is something that 4e occasionally does have problems with (all skill challenges ever, the game's inability to make an interesting solo monster, the fact that there is very little reason to buy monster manuals because once you have balanced monster stats you can get everything you need by refluffing and the occasional swap of a condition...).

Exalted players do complain about balance, but in different contexts generally. For example, Lunars can do two things well: being an unarmed brawler and being so pretty people do everything they say. You can try to build one to do something else, but you will have essentially no support from the system, despite heavy encouragement to do so in the fluff.

[Beowulf DW]

This tells me everything I need to know about how much the thread opener played or really read the D&D 4th edition-books and did not simply rely on third-party opinion based on hearsay.

:smallredface:

Guilty as charged I'm afraid. You're right, I'm going off of hearsay. I've never played 4.0, though I have read through one of its supplements (my sister got it for me without realizing that there are different editions of D&D). It seemed to add a lot of options to classes that used be rather limited, so I assumed that would others have said was true.

[Hiro Protagonest]

I don't really like the rock paper scissors thing. Never have. At the least, a rogue that uses his advantages like darkvision + stealth to catch a fighter off guard should be able to defeat him quickly.

I guess it could work if there were a few classes for each role. For example, a rager class that would be like a fighter but would fill striker rather than tank, as well as archer and a rogue classes for strikers, and some casters focused on single-target, high damage spells (call them spellsniper and divine assassin or something). The defender could be a fighter, or a gish with mass battlefield control, or a battle priest with minor divine powers augmenting his attacks. The third, a ranged attacker with a smattering of single-target BFC, as well as debuffs and blasts, could be a wizard, or an archer, or a battle priest focusing more on combat spells and less on martial combat.

Of course, there should be a fourth, someone made for functioning in a party. A healer and buffer. A priest or wizard could fill this role. Call the wizard the arcane tactician or something.

If you decide to roll all the spellcaster classes into a divine and an arcane spellcaster, make sure they can never take more than one role.

[Treblain]

When you've got a +9 Ogre-slaying knife and you're the one in the tavern getting drunk, that's not balance.

[blackjack217]

You can't really make a counter to magic, which by it's own definition is able to do anything. Even if you make a class immune to magic it's not a counter, because you could still beat it pretty easily with indirect magic (move terrain to make a bunch of boulders fall on the head of said class, telekinesis to throw stuff at it, etc...).

Magic is broken at its core, the only thing that in my opinion comes close to a counter to wizards and low hp magical classes is a stealth character with sneak attack, but even then with magic you can make yourself immune to criticals and thus sneak attacks without a problem.

Let's just face it, D&D is a game too large to be balanced, what matters is not balance but fun, every class should be fun to play regardless of its effectiveness, this isn't always true but it's an issue worth its own thread.

That sounds like a challenge to me. A class capable of beating any reasonable wizard while getting schooled by a warblade.

[jaybird]

A solution we've talked about often in our Pathfinder group is a massive expansion of skills. Every full caster gets 2+Int skill points, every 2/3 caster gets 4+Int skill points, Rogues and the like get 12+Int skill points, and everyone else gets either 8 or 10 +Int, to start. Expand their uses to the battlefield more so then previously (Half Acrobatics to Reflex as an example). Allow character level+relevant stat bonus as cap in skills (Rogue 5 with Cha 20 and Dex 16 is allowed 10 points in Bluff and 8 points in Acrobatics, for example). Increase DCs to make an on-level Acrobatics check actually difficult to pass for a character without sufficient skills in it.

Then tack the martial maneuver system on top of that to Fighter/Paladin/Ranger/Monk/Rogue.

[Hiro Protagonest]

That sounds like a challenge to me. A class capable of beating any reasonable wizard while getting schooled by a warblade.

Give him high damage and the ability to ignore lots of magic effects, but with a low attack bonus. Give him good reflex and will saves, the ability to ignore magical defensive effects (basically any AC, miss chance, or DR coming from a spell, SLA, and possibly magic item or Su abilities, as well as things like Contingency and Abrupt Jaunt, although Celerity would still be a killer that there's no logical way to avoid and should just be removed), a big bonus to AC against ranged attacks (might as well give him something useful against non-casters as well as casters), high SR, and the ability to climb a bunch of things (Wall of Force comes to mind).

Then, from that base, there would be two types, the brute and the rogue. The rogue has low hit points, but the ability to bypass magical wards. The brute has a good fortitude save and higher HP (still lower than a defender), and the ability to jump really high to attack flying enemies.

[Vitruviansquid]

Why not make the comparison to Fire Emblem?

It operates on a rock-paper-scissors system with swords-lances-axes, but it's not a situation where you only have one party member "out" at a time, provided the level designer/DM was doing a good job.

There's also the inherent imbalance in the system that makes RPS systems work in complex games - Axe users tend to be swingy attackers but consistent defenders, sword users tend to be swingy defenders but consistent attackers, and in Shadow Dragon, you weren't ever going to get a lance user that didn't have a crippling weakness to a certain weapon.

But in any case, while a RPS system would work to give a tactical RPG good balance, I think it'd still be a weaker design than 4e's where a balanced team should theoretically run over an unbalanced team no matter what role the unbalanced team was full of.

What I really want to see, though, is an RPG balanced like a fighting game, where each character theoretically has a response to each situation, but the responses are different so that characters feel different.

[erikun]

No, terrible idea. Let me point out why.


I like playing Clerics. The paladins, the crusaders, the general good-armor-healing-spells guy. Under your proposal, my character would be good against Necromancers but poor against Rogues (most likely). What this means is that, every time my character ran up against a sneaky character, he would end up losing. It doesn't matter what kind of protections he took, or what spells he prepared, or what skills he is good at - he always loses against Rogues, because the Healie-Type is weak against the Sneaky-Type.

This is basically the same problem that 4e had; it added a game-system to the classes, and bundled a set of game mechanics with each class concept. Do you like spellbook-scribing Wizards? They you're casting zones and playing crowd control, not just nuking battlefields with fireball. Do you like the shining champions of Paladins? Then you're stalling opponents and dealing holy damage when they bother your allies, not rushing up and smiting people in the face.

There is also the problem that nothing in the system prevents the players from making a party of pure Clerics, especially if they can find some cheap Rogue-immunity (Heavy Fortification armor?).

Water/Ground with Sap Sipper for me. Yay, zero weaknesses and two immunities!


Note that the problem with balance it's that too many people are playing Druids and not enough playing Clerics; it's that people playing Clerics and Druids are making the people playing Fighters irrelevant. The way to balance this is to give classes thematically-appropriate and level-appropriate abilities, while avoiding the overpowered ones. +1 BAB and a feat equal to Improved Trip are not appropriate 10th level abilities, and the Fighter class should be getting better. The ability to completely and irreversably destroy any single target with a failed saving throw is not an appropriate 10th level ability, and the Wizard should not be getting that spell, in that form, at that level.

This, of course, even assumes that combat-balance is so crucial because combat is the primary/only thing the party does.



That sounds like a challenge to me. A class capable of beating any reasonable wizard while getting schooled by a warblade.
Medium BAB, d8 HD, Evasion, Mettle, Freedom of Movement, Iron Heart Surge, the ability to break through Wall of Force/etc, and the ability to chase around spellcasters. Perhaps select immunity to orbs and dispelling summons.

3e Wizards are tough to deal with because they have so many silly options, especially high-level ones like Wish, Shapechange, and Gate.

[NichG]

Actually, one 'pokemon' counter to magic is as follows: all spells of any type require a minimum of 10 minutes (or 100 units of combat time, if you don't use 6 second rounds) to cast.

This makes it so that magic-based classes cannot participate in combat, thus making them the 'scissors' to fighters 'rock'. 'Paper' would be something like social manipulators who get the fighters in trouble whenever they try brute force, but who are defeated by the curses, spying ability, and landscape-altering spells of the godlike wizards (who can in turn be effortlessly stabbed by a guy with a sword if he gets close enough)

The problem with this is that, as mentioned above, if you spend a good 3 hours of gaming doing one of these types of tasks, everyone but the specialist basically sits it out.

[Heliomance]

Rock Paper Scissors. Pokemon. That is my proposal. A system that relies on each class countering one or two other classes. Those of you who have played Pokemon know the importance of making sure each member of your team is of a different type, so that one Fire-type, or Psychic-type, or whatever, can't demolish most of your team. Why not take this approach with parties of PCs?

When I played Pokemon, I always picked the starter that would have the type advantage for the first two gyms, then never used anything else. Because it was getting all the XP to itself, after the first two gyms it would demolish any enemy single-handedly, regardless of type matchups.

[blackjack217]

Give him high damage and the ability to ignore lots of magic effects, but with a low attack bonus. Give him good reflex and will saves, the ability to ignore magical defensive effects (basically any AC, miss chance, or DR coming from a spell, SLA, and possibly magic item or Su abilities, as well as things like Contingency and Abrupt Jaunt, although Celerity would still be a killer that there's no logical way to avoid and should just be removed), a big bonus to AC against ranged attacks (might as well give him something useful against non-casters as well as casters), high SR, and the ability to climb a bunch of things (Wall of Force comes to mind).

Then, from that base, there would be two types, the brute and the rogue. The rogue has low hit points, but the ability to bypass magical wards. The brute has a good fortitude save and higher HP (still lower than a defender), and the ability to jump really high to attack flying enemies.

You know, I think I will make a contest for this idea. I just have to make my own entry first. I always start with what I want the iconic ability of the class will be. I think I will call it Beyond the Bounds of Fate

[Kurald Galain]

In most systems, especially 3.5 and Pathfinder, issues of balance tend to arise.
The problem with your premise is that it's not actually true - certainly not for "most" systems. While 3E and PF have certain balance issues (and actually, so does 4E), these tend to be vastly overstated on certain internet forums, and it's far from given that they will arise in an actual game.

[Tyndmyr]

Rock Paper Scissors. Pokemon. That is my proposal. A system that relies on each class countering one or two other classes. Those of you who have played Pokemon know the importance of making sure each member of your team is of a different type, so that one Fire-type, or Psychic-type, or whatever, can't demolish most of your team. Why not take this approach with parties of PCs?

Rock Paper Scissors balancing is...very obvious to players, and immensely detrimental to gameplay. Consider Endwar, the video game that decided to make modern combat essentially rock paper scissors. It's horribly bad.

[Mystify]

When I played Pokemon, I always picked the starter that would have the type advantage for the first two gyms, then never used anything else. Because it was getting all the XP to itself, after the first two gyms it would demolish any enemy single-handedly, regardless of type matchups.

And you also progress through the game at a lightning pace to boot. I can beat pokemon in one sitting using a single pokemon. You get past the initial hurdle of the beginning, and then you are consistently such a high level you steamroll everything.

[prufock]

I look at it from a different point of view. "Balance" is a measure of how the abilities of one character match up to those of another character. Ideally, these are even. This simple definition, though, encompasses several things.
1. How many abilities you have
2. How often you can use those abilities
3. How powerful those abilities are
4. How flexible those abilities are

A quick assessment lets you realize that each of these alone are not too difficult to balance.
1. All characters get the same number of abilities
2. All characters can use those abilities the same number of times
3. Each ability's power is capped
4. Each ability can be used for X situations

So in a level-based game, we could balance pretty well by saying "each character gets one ability per level; each ability can be used x/day; each ability is capped at a bonus equal to your level; each ability is focused on only one type of use." To balance perfectly, each character should have access to the same pool of abilities.

Number 4 is the most difficult to operationalize. What constitutes a "type of use" or "situation"?

[Oracle_Hunter]

The problem with balance is not, as many people seem to believe, that a wizard can blow up a fighter in single combat. The problem is that there are several aspects of the game in which a class can contribute:

1) Class vs. class (PCs fighting a classed NPC, where having inter-class balance is important)
2) Class vs. monster (PCs fighting monsters, where having the ability to counter monsters is important)
3) Class vs. dungeon (PCs facing static obstacles, where having a toolbox of abilities is important)
4) Class vs. world (PCs facing dynamic obstacles, where having wide-ranging abilities is important)
QFT

This is exactly the issue. The point of balance in RPGs isn't PvP, but rather in the ability of the classes to each contribute meaningfully to the categories of challenges present in a RPG. A RPS-style paradigm works great for games such as Pokemon because the only meaningful category of challenge is that of PvP in which it is comparatively easy to construct a workable RPS system.

An interesting sub-question lies in the comparative ability of each class to operate within a given category of challenge.
As PairO'Dice Lost alluded, it isn't that 3.X classes are not equally good at dealing with a given category of challenge but rather that Casters are the best at every one and classes which are supposed to be good at dealing with a challenge category are not. This is actually two problems: first, that one class (or Tier of classes) is the best at doing everything and secondly the issue of false advertising.

The first is well known in 3.x by the monicker of the Tier System. By using the adaptability of each class as the measure of power, Jaronk implicitly acknowledges how important the ability of a class to deal with categories of problems is in a RPG. When you have one class that can deal with every category -- and do it better than those on lower Tiers -- the existence of other classes becomes irrelevant. This sense of unbalance, of course, is only visible when worlds where multiple Tiers coexist; this is why the Tier system is helpful for organizing a game. If everyone is Tier I, then nobody feels unbalanced. Of course, some people like to have a larger variety of classes than a Tier I game permits which is why game designers need to make sure not to make classes that are the best at everything.

The second could be called the "Fighter Problem." If you make a class that is supposed to do certain things, and it does not, you are going to betray some expectations and betrayed expectations annoy Players. It is reasonable to design a game where certain classes excel in certain challenge categories and are worthless in other ones (e.g. Fighters should excel at Class v. Monster challenges but fail at Class vs. World challenges). TSR D&D and Pre-Fourth Shadowrun both fit this paradigm and, while I think such systems are problematic they are a type of game that some folks enjoy. A problem arises when the class that is supposed to excel in one area is, in fact, deficient. This can either be an absolute deficiency (i.e. True Namers never do whatever it is they're supposed to do well) or a relative deficiency (i.e. never send a Monk when you can send an Unarmed Swordsage) but in either case you have created a Trash Class. Much as in the situation of Tiers, Trash Classes confuse Players and waste time and money for the developer (who made a class nobody should play) and the consumer (who paid for a class that nobody should use).

[gkathellar]

You can't really make a counter to magic, which by it's own definition is able to do anything.

That is not the definition of magic. See: all the games, stories, myths, and spiritual systems where you can use magic, but can't use it to do everything.

[Tyndmyr]

This can either be an absolute deficiency (i.e. True Namers never do whatever it is they're supposed to do well)

It's tangential to your main point, but this is certainly not the case. A truenamer can contribute meaningfully and have a very distinct party role in a tier 3 group. Extreme optimization is not needed to do this.

[Oracle_Hunter]

That is not the definition of magic. See: all the games, stories, myths, and spiritual systems where you can use magic, but can't use it to do everything.
Also, an elegant and finely-crafted link (http://www.writingexcuses.com/2008/05/12/writing-excuses-episode-14-magic-systems-and-their-rules/) to a podcast that elaborates on this point :smallbiggrin:

Additionally:

It's tangential to your main point, but this is certainly not the case. A truenamer can contribute meaningfully and have a very distinct party role in a tier 3 group. Extreme optimization is not needed to do this.
Really? While I have no experience with Truenamers I did read an enlightening guide (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=214115) which lead me to believe that a Truenamer would be out of place in a Tier III party. Could you elaborate, with a mind to what sort of challenge categories a Truenamer is a good choice for?

EDIT: Link fixed to go to actual guide.

[Tyndmyr]

Really? While I have no experience with Truenamers I did read an enlightening guide (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=114269) which lead me to believe that a Truenamer would be out of place in a Tier III party. Could you elaborate, with a mind to what sort of challenge categories a Truenamer is a good choice for?

My gaming group last night thought it was hilarious that I uttered the phrase "the last time I played a truenamer"...because they'd never heard of anyone playing the class, let alone multiple times.

A truenamer is not a fantastic soloer, as the damage output isn't stellar, but they have some extremely solid debuffs, and some of their abilities are literally the best in all of 3.5 at their niche. This may be a fairly narrow niche, depending on the ability, but some, like "dispel absolutely any buff, regardless of CL", are quite handy at even the highest of op levels.

Their biggest single strength is the utter lack of attack roles, and almost complete lack of saves. Additionally, every single utterance can ignore SR. Most damage dealing spells are untyped(the typed ones can change types). There is the skill check, true, but the point is that you literally do not care about the target's defenses. This makes them extremely reliable, and they posess notable versatility, as healing, direct damage, buffs, debuffs, and battlefield control are all standard utterances learned. In addition, they perform the non-social skill monkey role fairly well. Very versatile.

[gkathellar]

A truenamer is not a fantastic soloer, as the damage output isn't stellar, but they have some extremely solid debuffs, and some of their abilities are literally the best in all of 3.5 at their niche. This may be a fairly narrow niche, depending on the ability, but some, like "dispel absolutely any buff, regardless of CL", are quite handy at even the highest of op levels.

Their biggest single strength is the utter lack of attack roles, and almost complete lack of saves. Additionally, every single utterance can ignore SR. Most damage dealing spells are untyped(the typed ones can change types). There is the skill check, true, but the point is that you literally do not care about the target's defenses. This makes them extremely reliable, and they posess notable versatility, as healing, direct damage, buffs, debuffs, and battlefield control are all standard utterances learned. In addition, they perform the non-social skill monkey role fairly well. Very versatile.

If, and only if, your DM allows for custom items.

[Tyndmyr]

If, and only if, your DM allows for custom items.

This is not the case.

As I have pointed out numerous times already, a player who reads the truenaming class sufficiently to understand how the skill works, and whom has access to core and ToM only(on account of, yknow, the class being in there), can, without any custom items, automatically make his checks even at level 20.

It's only a DC 55 even then for the hardest lexicon(which everyone picks on), and skill checks are extremely pumpable. Especially when the class itself gives you boosts.

I really do wish people would actually play the class before repeating all the rumors about how terrible it is.

[Jerthanis]

In most systems, especially 3.5 and Pathfinder, issues of balance tend to arise. Horror stories of CoDzillas abound (I personally have played with one such min/maxer and the group I'm in has effectively exiled him). I don't often hear of issues involving balance from the Exalted crowd, though I suspect that when everyone's awesome, no one really notices or cares how much more awesome someone else may or may not be.


D&D 4.0 attempted to solve this dilemma by deciding that everyone would have special powers, not just the casters. However, as we learned from Disney's The Incredibles when everyone's super, no one is super.

Does anyone else find these statements are in direct contradiction with each other? If "everyone's awesome, so who cares about balance?" works, why is 4e "If everyone's super, no one's super"?

Anyway, my thoughts as to the rock-paper-scissors problem, as has been discussed, PvP isn't the source of the balance issues, but uneven contribution. Applying the Rock-Paper-Scissors analogy to this situation seems to suggest to me making Rock good against Class & Monster, Paper good against Dungeon and Scissors good against World, but this would mean that as each problem crops up, you wheel out the guy specifically suited to beating it and everyone sits back and watches.

The solution (I believe) to uneven contribution is to make everyone contribute at least enough to pull their own weight in all categories. You have to tone down the unreasonable problem solving ability of specific magic (such as scrying, mind control and transportation) and allow nonmagic classes to have specific, effective abilities that contribute directly to all areas of expertise to some extent. These abilities would need the force of mechanical backing you'd see in spells, not just "Oh yeah, the Fighter can intimidate, so that's how he contributes to solving this problem" but "The Fighter can Interrogate, that results in his target being unable to resist divulging information on three subjects. One "subject" can be spent preventing the target from being able to reveal to anyone what he was questioned about." or something like that. Not "The Fighter has good saves" but "The Fighter can Tough It Out once per encounter or day where he automatically makes all his saves until the end of his turn allowing him to look at the Medusa, walk through the Prismatic Wall or across the area affected by an Entangle spell", Stuff like that.

[McMouse]

If you wanted something very balanced that still fits the tropes of DnD and are willing to do a little legwork with the mechanics you could easily move it to a rock-paper-scissors-esque physical/magical attack/defense/utility system. Every class is poor at two, average at two, and good at two, and they probably operate along 4E lines in terms of attacks vs defenses for abilities.


Full list of DnD 3.5 class Ph(ysical)/M(agical) A(ttack)/D(efense)/U(tility matchups:
Bard:
Ph-A: Average
Ph-D: Bad
Ph-U: Good
M-A: Bad
M-D: Average
M-U: Good

Barbarian:
Ph-A: Good
Ph-D: Average
Ph-U: Good
M-A: Bad
M-D: Bad
M-U: Average

Cleric:
Ph-A: Average
Ph-D: Good
Ph-U: Bad
M-A: Bad
M-D: Good
M-U: Average

Druid:
Ph-A: Bad
Ph-D: Bad
Ph-U: Average
M-A: Average
M-D: Good
M-U: Good

Fighter:
Ph-A: Good
Ph-D: Good
Ph-U: Average
M-A: Bad
M-D: Average
M-U: Bad

Monk:
Ph-A: Average
Ph-D: Average
Ph-U: Good
M-A: Bad
M-D: Good
M-U: Bad

Paladin:
Ph-A: Good
Ph-D: Good
Ph-U: Bad
M-A: Bad
M-D: Average
M-U: Average

Ranger:
Ph-A: Good
Ph-D: Average
Ph-U: Good
M-A: Bad
M-D: Bad
M-U: Average

Rogue:
Ph-A: Good
Ph-D: Average
Ph-U: Good
M-A: Bad
M-D: Bad
M-U: Average

Sorceror:
Ph-A: Bad
Ph-D: Average
Ph-U: Bad
M-A: Good
M-D: Average
M-U: Good

Wizard:
Ph-A: Bad
Ph-D: Bad
Ph-U: Average
M-A: Good
M-D: Average
M-U: Good


You can easily map these attacks/defenses to DnD stats. For example: Str - Physical Attack (brute force), Dex - Physical Utility(skill/speed), Con - Physical Defense(ability to avoid/absorb damage), Int - Magical Attack(targetting and enhancing spells), Wis - Magical Defense (avoiding spells, healing, spell-related buffs and debuffs), Cha - Magical Utility (illusion, divination, battlefield control, etc). Make it so they in turn supplement core class abilities (Sneak attack benefits from Physical Utility, Bard song benefits from Magical Utility, melee in general benefits from Physical Attack and Defense, blasting relies on Magical Attack, defensive casters, healers, and buffers rely on Magical Defense, and controllers rely on Magical Utility, etc. There are a million ways the stats can be mapped and adjusted).

Magic should not be able to influence opponents during combat without an attack of some sort. Buffs and healing should have some sort of check component as well - a chance for failure, or at least sub-standard effect. Make all the big, useful, flashy stuff (teleport, forcecage, wish) have a long enough cast time that it is not reasonably useful in combat (as suggested above).

How much (or little) each stat scales per level defines how rock-paper-scissor-y the game will feel. If characters are more homogenous, it will feel very balanced but somewhat bland. If characters have a wider range of attacks and defenses, it will feel more unique but also be more dangerous.

Spells and abilities are the key to keeping this system balanced. Reworking straightforward damage, buff, and healing spells and abilities is not too difficult but how exactly the more powerful summoning, control, debuff spells work is an exercise left to the reader. As is standardizing damage and HP to a fun level. And, well, most of it.

Now a lot of this sounds just like 4th edition, which is certainly the case. I just feel that abstracting the framework slightly allows for a reworking at the homemade level which always results in a fun and familiar system.

[Beowulf DW]

Does anyone else find these statements are in direct contradiction with each other? If "everyone's awesome, so who cares about balance?" works, why is 4e "If everyone's super, no one's super."

Allow me to explain. What I meant was that everyone in Exalted seems to be so good at their intended role that any issues of balance fall out of focus. 4th Edition, from what I've been told, has many classes doing pretty much the same thing but with different fluff.

Does that clarify at all? I'm sorry if it seems that my priorities are a bit screwed up, but being called contradictory really gets on my nerves.

[Hiro Protagonest]

I want to make a point about the 4e and "everyone's super" thing.

That's not how it works. It's not like every NPC in the world gains level as you do and is just as powerful as your character. Sure, the PCs are all super, but that's because they're all larger-than-life heroes, and there are only 4-6 of them on average. Sure, there are NPCs their level and above their level, but that's not any different than 3.5.

[Bagelson]

I suppose it is characteristic for D&D that this discussion is sharply aimed at combat mechanics, but in most systems there is more to it. So here's a note on more general systems.

In my opinion, this thing to balance above all, is Spotlight. Over the course of one or more sessions, does each character get roughly an equal amount of opportunities to play to their strengths and weaknesses in such a way that they're centre stage?

It's not just a case of a character being efficient at what they do, it's a case of a character getting screen time for what they do. E.g. a character focused on healing, but whose healing is always handwaved in the background is a terribly dull character to play; even if said healing is vital to success.

Generally it is up to the GM to balance this, usually indirectly by designing challenges to suit each character's focus or informing the players what to expect while characters are being built.

Problems arise when the focus and abilities of several characters overlap, as they will be competing for the same spotlight opportunities. If one of the characters does this better since the player picked a better class, he will get more spotlight and there is a case of class imbalance.

D&D is a special case of this, since it's so heavily weighted towards a single system: combat. Combat can of course be divided into multiple areas of specialization; melee, various degrees of ranged, mobs or single foes, etc. But the more saturated the class line-up is, the more overlap there will be and the more the specialized builds will stand out.

The above only considers spotlight as concerned with mechanical strengths. There is also narrative spotlight in two flavours, player generated (descriptions, actions that involve the setting) and GM-generated (plot, pretty much everything). A good GM will use this to balance out the mechanical spotlight to some extent, though ideally there is always some of both. The healer mentioned above might be a saint around whom the entire story revolves.

With that said, I'll let you return to your regularly scheduled mathematics.

[Jerthanis]

Allow me to explain. What I meant was that everyone in Exalted seems to be so good at their intended role that any issues of balance fall out of focus. 4th Edition, from what I've been told, has many classes doing pretty much the same thing but with different fluff.

Does that clarify at all? I'm sorry if it seems that my priorities are a bit screwed up, but being called contradictory really gets on my nerves.

I admit to being intellectually dishonest with that statement in an effort to be funny, so you don't need to feel as if you're being contradictory.

Because yes, 4e and Exalted are different animals and so any statement made about them won't apply in the same way to both. I should have been able to make a guess of what you meant by each in context of the system they referred to and chose to ignore that to make a point of how the two statements seem to come into conflict. I am sorry for that.

However, I would put out there that Exalted DOES have pretty serious balance issues that an ability to specialize in a lot of directions doesn't entirely excuse AND I feel a lot of the blandness people feel playing 4e doesn't come from removing overpowered abilities or from classes not being able to auto-trump other characters or situations, but from... a variety of reasons not worth going into here. Suffice it to say, It isn't "if everyone's super, no one is", but more the other way around. Kind of.

[Beowulf DW]

I want to make a point about the 4e and "everyone's super" thing.

That's not how it works. It's not like every NPC in the world gains level as you do and is just as powerful as your character. Sure, the PCs are all super, but that's because they're all larger-than-life heroes, and there are only 4-6 of them on average. Sure, there are NPCs their level and above their level, but that's not any different than 3.5.

So in 4e there aren't any NPCs with class levels? That's a serious question, by the way. Most of what I know of 4e is based off of what I've seen posted on these forums and from what my friends have told me.

[Oracle_Hunter]

So in 4e there aren't any NPCs with class levels? That's a serious question, by the way. Most of what I know of 4e is based off of what I've seen posted on these forums and from what my friends have told me.
Yeah, 4e doesn't work that way. And unfortunately most of the noise on fora tends to repeat things like "4e is WoW' and "4e is bland" :smallsigh:

(1) NPCs are constructed via a completely different rules than PCs.
4e realized that the rules you need to make a Player Character are different from the ones you need to make someone for the Player Characters to interact with. This is a boon for DMs because they don't need to make a million different choices to "construct" a mid-to-high level NPC; they just give it the powers that are appropriate and go from there. Heck, you don't even need to pick out magic items if you don't want to.

(2) Classes are not the same, not even within a single role.
A 4e Fighter and a Battlemind (both Defenders) have a lot less in common than a 3.x Wizard and a Sorcerer. They have different core mechanics, different power lists, and even different sub-mechanics for tweaking their powers. Anyone who tells you they play the same has either never done it, or is doing it wrong. This is true even of Strikers -- pure damage dealers. That said, some people feel a desire to learn an entirely new rules set before a class "feels" different to them. I don't understand it, but it is there. If you want your Wizard to roll dice to cast spells and you Cleric to draw a poker hand then 4e is going to disappoint. For everyone else, it's enough.

I'm just frustrated because I convinced myself that these sorts of myths would not influence people from trying 4e. Apparently I was just deluding myself :smallannoyed:

[Mystify]

Yeah, 4e doesn't work that way. And unfortunately most of the noise on fora tends to repeat things like "4e is WoW' and "4e is bland" :smallsigh:

(1) NPCs are constructed via a completely different rules than PCs.
4e realized that the rules you need to make a Player Character are different from the ones you need to make someone for the Player Characters to interact with. This is a boon for DMs because they don't need to make a million different choices to "construct" a mid-to-high level NPC; they just give it the powers that are appropriate and go from there. Heck, you don't even need to pick out magic items if you don't want to.

(2) Classes are not the same, not even within a single role.
A 4e Fighter and a Battlemind (both Defenders) have a lot less in common than a 3.x Wizard and a Sorcerer. They have different core mechanics, different power lists, and even different sub-mechanics for tweaking their powers. Anyone who tells you they play the same has either never done it, or is doing it wrong. This is true even of Strikers -- pure damage dealers. That said, some people feel a desire to learn an entirely new rules set before a class "feels" different to them. I don't understand it, but it is there. If you want your Wizard to roll dice to cast spells and you Cleric to draw a poker hand then 4e is going to disappoint. For everyone else, it's enough.

I'm just frustrated because I convinced myself that these sorts of myths would not influence people from trying 4e. Apparently I was just deluding myself :smallannoyed:
I've played in several 4e campaigns, and the biggest issue I have with it is that there is a stranglehold on character customization. Having the basic mechanics work on powers also makes it really hard to make custom classes to mitigate that problem. The choices you can make to differentiate the characters are relatively minor. You pick one class. At best you can do a hybrid, which generally flops. Most of them are not viable. Once you have your class, you have a few powers to select from, and some feats. The feats themselves tend to be blander and less meaningful.
They acheive balance by taking away the flexibility. I can spend hours making an odd 3.5 character, go after whatever off the wall concept I want,and make it generally effective. I can make a character who is the master of magic missile, the mage who thinks hes a tank, the character who will kill you with a banana, the barbarian who is the master of defenses, or archery, or any other concept I see fit. I try making 4e characters, and anything other than a really basic concept just falls apart. I could barely manage a lightning sorcerer. If its not one of their pre-sanctioned concepts, the system is not flexible enough to allow it. Classes are not building blocks to make your character, they are the entire defining aspect of the character.

And it is really, really annoying as a player to come across an enemy who has a gambit that you can't use. Or worse, uses a gambit better than you can as a PC. It wasn't in 4e, but star wars saga edition where I really ran into that issue. I had the build focused around making single, powerful sniper shots, which would hit hard and really mess up a player. Then we come across a boss, and he does the same thing, only hes knocking down more tracks than I can, with all of my build focused on it. I questioned the DM afterwards, and he had a special, NPC only ability to allow him to do it. It was extremely annoying that not only did he do it better than me, he did it better than I could even do in theory.

In 4e, I often have the issue where the enemies are doing really cool things, and I can only look at it as say "That was nifty, I want to do that. I could have fun with a character built around it". But no, that was a special NPC power that I could never hope to get. Its not even some weird monster power, its a humanoid doing it. Whatever cool abilities the party has, the random mooks we are facing have a tendency to have cooler abilities that upstage us. Why should they get to shift their speed and attack 3 people along the way when we can't? Its one thing for a monster to have unique abilities because its a monster. Its another thing when another member of your race is doing things that you can't do as a PC.

[Oracle_Hunter]

Selected replies to Mystify

I've played in several 4e campaigns, and the biggest issue I have with it is that there is a stranglehold on character customization. Having the basic mechanics work on powers also makes it really hard to make custom classes to mitigate that problem. The choices you can make to differentiate the characters are relatively minor. You pick one class. At best you can do a hybrid, which generally flops. Most of them are not viable. Once you have your class, you have a few powers to select from, and some feats. The feats themselves tend to be blander and less meaningful.
It is admittedly difficult to make custom classes in 4e but IMHO the sort of customization you do in 4e comes from power selection (you get 4+ choices per level and can only take one; a combination (http://betterexplained.com/articles/easy-permutations-and-combinations/) shows the high number of unique builds), not feats. Multiclassing provides an additional tweak since a Cleric MC Ranger should play very different from a straight Cleric regardless of power selection. Additionally, Paragon Paths & Epic Destinies provide further customization.

Hybrids were an attempt to produce 3.x style multiclass system that, IMHO, was a miserable failure. Of course, if you wanted that level of uniqueness then GURPS is a far better choice than any class-based system.


And it is really, really annoying as a player to come across an enemy who has a gambit that you can't use. Or worse, uses a gambit better than you can as a PC.
I've always wondered -- when you see a Dragon flying and breathing acid, do you also complain that your halfling cannot also learn to fly or breathe acid? Is that something you'd like in a game?

In my 4e games I will joke with Players "If you like that Encounter Power you can roll up one of his class next game. You will also have 1 Healing Surge and no more than 3 total powers." NPCs take different paths through life than PCs and, IMHO, one should no more be able to mix & match powers than someone in real life should be able to pick up surgery after spending their lives becoming the world's greatest stunt driver. IMHO Classes indicate a particular skill set that has a lot of unique training and regimes that simply cannot be mastered piecemeal. Personally, I always found it silly that one could take 1 level in Fighter in 3.x and suddenly be trained in every (normal weapon and armor in existence regardless of whether he had spent the past 10 years learning to pick locks or cast spells.
I addressed these points because they are, again IMHO, taste-based concerns that, while legitimate, cannot be said to argue against the system for the general public. Indeed, in the first case I would suggest that class-based systems are probably a bad choice if you want so much customizability; GURPS, not D&D, would be my recommended system.

[Rejusu]

My opinion on balance in D&D is and has always been that being the arbiter balance is the dungeon masters job. The rules don't have to be strictly balanced because they're not interpreted by a computer. A DM doesn't have to follow them like a rigid set of instructions and can mould them to what works. Because of this the game system is free to include things that are fun, even if they're not necessarily balanced. If you want to play something that's hilariously powerful in comparison to the rest of the party the DM can just shoot you down.

Plus what does balance really mean in a tabletop game anyway? Most of the time PC's aren't competing with each other. I can understand PC's not wanting to feel useless but really if the game is going that way then the DM can and should do something about it. Not to mention that "power" in a tabletop game is relative anyway. In terms of combat potential I fully expect my half-giant spiked chain psychic warrior to be dominating combat for a while, though I expect our Cerebremancer will eclipse me later on.

However while our Factotum skill monkey may be fairly useless in combat he's got skill points coming out of all orifices and has enough charisma to be the party face to boot. Out of combat he'll be kicking my ass on anything that doesn't involve a strength check. Though come to think of it his brains over brawn ability means he's not going to be far behind in that regard either.

At any rate if too much attention is paid to making things "balanced" then it just leads to homogenization ninety percent of the time. After all the easiest way to balance things after all is to make everyone capable of everything. And what's fun about everyone being the same?

[Mystify]

My opinion on balance in D&D is and has always been that being the arbiter balance is the dungeon masters job. The rules don't have to be strictly balanced because they're not interpreted by a computer. A DM doesn't have to follow them like a rigid set of instructions and can mould them to what works. Because of this the game system is free to include things that are fun, even if they're not necessarily balanced. If you want to play something that's hilariously powerful in comparison to the rest of the party the DM can just shoot you down.

There are limits to this. It is essentially impossible to balance a fighter against the wizards. The DM can correct minor differences, but gross differences are not so negligible. The balancing occuring at the party level means every DM has to deal with it, instead of managing the exceptions. And believe me, not every DM is capable of managing the differences. If the system has a balanced baseline, it is easier to see how to make changes to maintain the balance. Trying to guide 6 players with disparate characters into balance is a headache if the system doesn't provide that as a baseline.


Plus what does balance really mean in a tabletop game anyway? Most of the time PC's aren't competing with each other. I can understand PC's not wanting to feel useless but really if the game is going that way then the DM can and should do something about it. Not to mention that "power" in a tabletop game is relative anyway. In terms of combat potential I fully expect my half-giant spiked chain psychic warrior to be dominating combat for a while, though I expect our Cerebremancer will eclipse me later on.

However while our Factotum skill monkey may be fairly useless in combat he's got skill points coming out of all orifices and has enough charisma to be the party face to boot. Out of combat he'll be kicking my ass on anything that doesn't involve a strength check. Though come to think of it his brains over brawn ability means he's not going to be far behind in that regard either.

The system needs to be balanced to within the players tolerances for variance. The factotum won't excel at combat, but they chose a class with a focus that is elsewhere, so they are most likely someone who appreciates that focus. Classes that get shut down or don't deliver on their potential can frustrate players. However, consider the dynamic between a factotum and a warblade. A factotum lakcs the combat power of a warblade, but has a lot of external potential to pull cool tricks and accomplish goals. The warblade has a lot of flexibility in combat, and much more direct power, but fewer out of combat options. Constrast with the dynamic between a fighter and a wizard. A wizard can dominate the combat, and has a ton of options for out of combat. The fighter only has skills for in-combat, and they may not function well without a lot of optimizing. Your choice of archetype becomes a choice of effectiveness, instead of a choice of focus. If you choose a rogue, that should be choosing an emphasis on stealth and maneuverability. Not a choice on your power level.



At any rate if too much attention is paid to making things "balanced" then it just leads to homogenization ninety percent of the time. After all the easiest way to balance things after all is to make everyone capable of everything. And what's fun about everyone being the same?
Thats a problem with the implementation, not the goal. Look at Legend (www.ruleofcool.com). Its well-balanced. Not perfectly, but well within acceptable bounds. You still have all the flexibility you need to design characters, and different characters will have vastly different abilities, different playstyles, and different mechanics. spellcasters, mundanes, and those in between all function together as a party, without issue. You shouldn't avoid balance because you are afraid it will be done wrong. You should be aware it can be done wrong, and avoid it.

[Oracle_Hunter]

Plus what does balance really mean in a tabletop game anyway?
This is what it means:

The problem with balance is not, as many people seem to believe, that a wizard can blow up a fighter in single combat. The problem is that there are several aspects of the game in which a class can contribute:

1) Class vs. class (PCs fighting a classed NPC, where having inter-class balance is important)
2) Class vs. monster (PCs fighting monsters, where having the ability to counter monsters is important)
3) Class vs. dungeon (PCs facing static obstacles, where having a toolbox of abilities is important)
4) Class vs. world (PCs facing dynamic obstacles, where having wide-ranging abilities is important)
5) More; you can probably break things up more, add in more aspects, etc., but I'll stick with these for now.

As an example, let's take the Red Hand of Doom adventure module. The PCs are trying to stop a horde of bad guys who worship Tiamat and have dragons, pretty iconic setup. This module has instances of each aspect multiple times, all of which are important:
1) Class vs. class: the enemy has several cultists with levels in caster classes, and the main bad guy is a classed half-dragon.
2) Class vs. monster: the module has dragons, hydras, and other dangerous critters.
3) Class vs. dungeon: there are some nice set pieces such as bridges over chasms, swamps, and such that serve as obstacles or allow for getting around encounters without fighting.
4) Class vs. world: there's a time limit on the adventure as the horde masses for an attack, and the locations are all spread out, requiring a bunch of exploration and travel.

So, what does each class bring to this adventure? A fighter can handle class vs. class and class vs. monster, as long as he has ranged weapons, reach weapons, good AC, etc. to survive. He doesn't bring anything much to the table on the other two, though, with his lack of skills and non-combat features. A rogue can handle the same two the fighter can, but can also do class vs. dungeon pretty well with his skills (Use Rope + Climb to get over the chasm, Swim + Move Silently + Hide to sneak through the swamp, UMD if nothing else to handle some obstacles); he doesn't have much for class vs. world unless he leans heavily on UMD or focuses on Survival and such. A wizard can handle all four well, because on top of having plenty of combat tricks (both fighting and avoiding it) and utility tricks for the first three, he has speed-increasing magic, flight magic, and teleportation to get the party from point A to point B fast, he has charm X and animate dead to turn enemies against each other and increase the forces of good, and so forth to handle class vs. world obstacles.

So a rock-paper-scissors system really wouldn't do anything to help balance. If you make fighter/rogue/wizard the RPS setup, that doesn't do anything to change the fact that fighters do nothing out of combat and wizards do everything. If you make magic/martial/monster the RPS setup, that makes fights nice and dynamic and solves the "wizard > fighter and wizard > monster" problem, but still makes the fighter sit out during non-combat scenarios. If you make combat/utility/exploration the RPS, that would mean the fighter does combat, the wizard does out of combat, and the rogue does a bit of both; if the wizard can't contribute much in combat, that's (A) boring for the wizard player during combat, which just flips the problem around, and (B) disastrous for the other PCs who'd rely on buffs, debuffs, and CC in combat. Any way you slice it, RPS setups really don't work outside of the highly constrained environment of an arena or in RTS/FPG/MMORPG video games.
In short, Class Balance lies in the ability of different classes to contribute meaningfully across the array of challenges present in a game. A poorly balanced game either has many classes which are outstripped by others in their supposed area of specialization, fail to contribute meaningfully in major challenge categories, or both.

A well-balanced game can be constructed such that each class can contribute meaningfully to every challenge (the 4e model) or each class has a few challenge categories in which they excel and others where they fail (the Shadowrun model).

[Tyndmyr]

A well-balanced game can be constructed such that each class can contribute meaningfully to every challenge (the 4e model) or each class has a few challenge categories in which they excel and others where they fail (the Shadowrun model).

Or, some gradient between the two.

[Beowulf DW]

Yeah, 4e doesn't work that way. And unfortunately most of the noise on fora tends to repeat things like "4e is WoW' and "4e is bland" :smallsigh:

(1) NPCs are constructed via a completely different rules than PCs.
4e realized that the rules you need to make a Player Character are different from the ones you need to make someone for the Player Characters to interact with. This is a boon for DMs because they don't need to make a million different choices to "construct" a mid-to-high level NPC; they just give it the powers that are appropriate and go from there. Heck, you don't even need to pick out magic items if you don't want to.

(2) Classes are not the same, not even within a single role.
A 4e Fighter and a Battlemind (both Defenders) have a lot less in common than a 3.x Wizard and a Sorcerer. They have different core mechanics, different power lists, and even different sub-mechanics for tweaking their powers. Anyone who tells you they play the same has either never done it, or is doing it wrong. This is true even of Strikers -- pure damage dealers. That said, some people feel a desire to learn an entirely new rules set before a class "feels" different to them. I don't understand it, but it is there. If you want your Wizard to roll dice to cast spells and you Cleric to draw a poker hand then 4e is going to disappoint. For everyone else, it's enough.

I'm just frustrated because I convinced myself that these sorts of myths would not influence people from trying 4e. Apparently I was just deluding myself :smallannoyed:

I see. Thank you. I'm used to Pathfinder and 3.5 where you can have NPCs with class levels. It never occurred to me that the same couldn't be said of 4e until Jade Dragon spoke up.

So the main problem people have with 4e is that they feel shackled to their class, then?

[Mystify]

So the main problem people have with 4e is that they feel shackled to their class, then?
That is a large part of it, yes.

[Hiro Protagonest]

So the main problem people have with 4e is that they feel shackled to their class, then?

There are a few options for each class. They mostly feel the same, but there is a good difference between an archer ranger and a two-weapon ranger. Wizards seem to get the most love in this regard, able to act as a pseudo-striker with a bunch of AoEs, usually with a rider effect for the token control ability, or absolutely dominate the field with powerful controls. Warlocks and sorcerers can be refluffed as more blasty wizards.

Then there's hybrids, which, while they do have a sidebar saying that you should think a hybrid through more thoroughly than the standard, should really come with a WARNING: DO NOT ATTEMPT WITHOUT SYSTEM MASTERY. REAL SYSTEM MASTERY, NOT THE HALFWAY DECENT STUFF. But a well made hybrid can help fit concepts, although generally if you want to be "commando fighter" you should be a ranger, or a fighter or warlord with the rogue multiclass feat, and if you want to be a wizard that deals with devils, it's generally better to play a straight wizard or warlock, maybe with the multiclass feat for the other class.

[Oracle_Hunter]

Or, some gradient between the two.
Y'know, normally I'm all for spectrums but here I'm not so sure.
What lies between a SR game and a D&D4 game?

If you have classes which excel in multiple challenge categories (in a SR-style game) it calls into question the existence of classes that only excel in one or the other. Why play a Fighter when you could play a Cleric? In order for this to remain balanced you would need to fine-tune things so that the multi-winner is does not excel as much as either specialist class but is still above some minimal level of competence so you don't end up with a Master of None (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MasterOfNone). IMHO, the edge you need to walk here is far too fine to make it worthwhile in the first place -- provided you wanted to keep the game balanced in the first place.

The other end of the spectrum is easier to work with as you simply need to tweak the relative competences while making sure nobody is an out-and-out master. This is what 4e did, though it is clearest in the case of Core Striker balancing. Each class (i.e. Ranger, Rogue, Warlock) was supposed to deal massive damage but still needed to be distinct. Rangers, WotC decided, should be pure damage machines and as a result do very little else aside from damage. Yes, they have skills, but their powers are pretty much all damage powers. Rogues were to be more skill-oriented so their damage mechanic was designed to be more situational but still within Striker range. The Warlock is the exception, but one that shows the hazard of this approach -- WotC wanted it to be a Striker but to also have a lot of cross-specialization powers (i.e. Controller) so they weakened its damage to keep it from being a multi-winner. Unfortunately, the Warlock was so non-traditional that it failed terribly at being a Striker while not quite working as a Controller.
Of course, all of this assumes you want to play balanced games. I appreciate them because they're harder to screw up and let me have a freer hand as a DM using the RAW. This is not to say you can't or shouldn't enjoy an unbalanced game, it just isn't for me.

[Mystify]

Y'know, normally I'm all for spectrums but here I'm not so sure.
What lies between a SR game and a D&D4 game?

Legend. Everyone has a solid baseline of power that is going to be generally effective, then you will have things your character excels at more than others. For instance, a basic barbarian is really good at handling swarms of low level creatures, with whirlwind and cleave abilities. A paladin with smiting is better at focusing damage on one creature to bring it down. A Sage might be focused on AoE effects with interesting riders. Your character is very unlikely to outright suck in a given situation, unlike a 3.5 rogue, but there can be places where you excel.

[Leolo]

And so attempts at balance are ignored or abandoned to preserve the essential feeling of each class. I would like to propose an approach to balance which could help solve some of the issues underlying the balance debate, that is to say the issue of letting each member of a party contribute and feel important, and the issue of preserving the feel of each class.

...

I think that this approach would allow each class to contribute, while ensuring that no one class can handle any situation on its own (I'm looking at you, Druids...). This would also avoid the quagmire that 4th Edition found itself in: Every class feels the same. Just as a rock, a sheet of paper, and a pair of scissors are completely different items, useful for very different purposes, so to could each class be different.

Well, what do you guys and gals think? Am I off my rocker? Or am I on to something?

The problem is: What you describe _is_ the way 4e works. The classes are not the same and play differently - each has it's own strengths and weaknesses.

But they all contribute. Nevertheless your statement is one of the most heard statements about this topic and 4E. I have even heard people claiming things like "Invisibility, a flaming arrow and a swordstrike are all the same". It sounds insane, but those arguments can be heard often.

Some of this can be caused by the presentation. All those things are called powers. They all may have different mechanics, different fluff and different resulting effects - but they are all presented in the same coloured boxes. And have a similar format.

But another part is the meaning of balancing, and this is the interresting part for you. There is a group of gamers that calls a game streamlined if all can contribute equally. Regardless if every character can contribute more in a special situation than another.

It is the opinion: The wizard should always have a better solution.

And it is valid, if all have fun with it.