PDA

View Full Version : Class balance yay or nay?



Pages : [1] 2 3

rollfrenzy
2007-08-20, 11:12 AM
So I ask you...

Is class balance a good thing or a bad thing?

yango
2007-08-20, 11:14 AM
Class balance, overrated or desperately needed?

Desperately needed.
The game is about everyone having fun. How is everyone supposed to have fun if the melee guys get shafted all the time?

Spiryt
2007-08-20, 11:20 AM
Desperately needed.

Of course, Wizard should be more powerful than man who can basicaly "only"
fight with sword extraordinary.

And he will always be. You can't dominate person, teleport or summon a demon with sword.

But fighter should be more powerful in fight. That's what he's fighter for. Magic shouldn't be so easy to use in the heat of the battle. It should be delicate and consuming (for D&D standarts of course), so fighter whith his skill and tactics, maybe some supernatural abilities too, should ussualy kill a mage in straight fight. That's 2nd edition longer cast time for many spells was better, I think.

That's how I see it.

Indon
2007-08-20, 11:23 AM
I say overrated.

Yes, having some classes more powerful than others will tend towards some players being more effective than others. But 'class balance' won't stop that.

This is because everyone tends to optimize their characters different degrees. Now, instead of the poor fighter being left out, it's just going to be whatever player can't/doesn't want to optimize at the same level as the other players. Instead of Batman Wizards, it'll just be the single most optimized character.

And with classes 'balanced', you don't even have a choice to play another, easier class to balance out the party and help everyone be useful while still optimising to their personally preferred levels. You either conform your group's optimization level, or you have an 'unbalanced' party.

It's trading one set of problems for another. I don't, however, imagine there will be much complaining on online forums, since the posters on such forums are probably above-average at optimization compared to the average player.

rollfrenzy
2007-08-20, 11:27 AM
I am told that I worded the question in a "completely biased way" in order to get the repsonses I wanted So I am going to change the OP...

I agree with Spiryt, that would be a good way of maintianing the power of the arcane and still keeping fighters in it.

Krellen
2007-08-20, 11:28 AM
Desperately needed.

It's all magic's fault. If we just remove some of the top levels of spells, we'll have a good start. Better feats would be nice too.

Green Bean
2007-08-20, 11:35 AM
Good thing.

Yes, high-level wizards should stand head and shoulders above their fellow mortals. But most of those fellow mortals are level 1 commoners. Two characters of equal level are supposed to be equal, regardless of where they get their power.

Spiryt
2007-08-20, 11:40 AM
I can't see what was so biased with your question, but OK.

Still basically I can agree with your friend/brother (don't remember :smallbiggrin: ). Arcane power is more powerful than sword.

So next logical step is that achieving arcane power is much more consuming and needs more dedication and time than achieving even grandest mastery of sword/axe/bow/flail.

So wizard should be level 10 when Fighter is 15-16. And spent his time learning whole night, searching mentors and risking his life in some damned planes to learn some "mhysteries".

But since it's a game it all must be little collusive. Classes should be balanced and that's all.

Tengu
2007-08-20, 11:41 AM
Good thing.

Yes, high-level wizards should stand head and shoulders above their fellow mortals. But most of those fellow mortals are level 1 commoners. Two characters of equal level are supposed to be equal, regardless of where they get their power.

Agreed. A fighter should be able to pull acts of prowess similar in power as what can a mage do with his mojo. I personally believe that at some point, a warrior whose sole trick is swinging a weapon really hard shouldn't exists, at some point everyone should be able to make things that's considered extraordinary - essentially, what ToB is about.

Though actually, the only system with classes among my favorites is Earthdawn.


Arcane power is more powerful than sword.


It doesn't have to be. Swinging a sword is a physical equivalent of the mage casting a spell that can light a fireplace or a cigarette. When wizards are able to turn people to stone or teleport, fighters should be able to cut through mountains and block arrows with their swords.
Why, in a world of dragons and giants, only the magic-users should be allowed to pull stuff impossible in real life?

Maxymiuk
2007-08-20, 11:47 AM
I say overrated.

Yes, having some classes more powerful than others will tend towards some players being more effective than others. But 'class balance' won't stop that.

Wizard:
Teleport+Quickened Time Stop+Spam Delayed Blast Fireball+Teleport and everyone is dead KEKEKEKEKE!

Fighter:
Uhh... I hit it with my sword again?

It's not about balancing classes as much as it is about getting rid of the glaring, insanely obvious leviathan of class imbalance.


This is because everyone tends to optimize their characters different degrees. Now, instead of the poor fighter being left out, it's just going to be whatever player can't/doesn't want to optimize at the same level as the other players. Instead of Batman Wizards, it'll just be the single most optimized character.

Ah, then it isn't a mechanical problem as much as it is a player problem. Well, as it happens, different groups develop different styles. Some like to optimize, some don't. What players want out of balance however, is that there exists a way for a fighter to outshine a wizard. Because let's face it, in 3.5 even a poorly built wizard can absolutely destroy your uber-optimized, template-ridden, loot-loaded fighter.


And with classes 'balanced', you don't even have a choice to play another, easier class to balance out the party and help everyone be useful while still optimizing to their personally preferred levels. You either conform your group's optimization level, or you have an 'unbalanced' party.

I'm sorry, but I don't see what you're trying to say here. So if I want to be useful, I have to play a specific class? Newsflash: this is why so many people want to have balanced classes in the first place.


It's trading one set of problems for another. I don't, however, imagine there will be much complaining on online forums, since the posters on such forums are probably above-average at optimization compared to the average player.

Personally, I prefer to play fighters. Tactical combat, maneuvers like trip or disarm, flanking... this is what draws me to D&D. What has me out looking for other systems to play, however, is the fact that as soon as level 5 I might as well go and hang up my sword, because the wizard and the cleric are out there causing havoc, mayhem, and generalized suffering. Past level 10 it just becomes no contest.

So yes, I want some damned equal footing this time around. :smallmad:

Jayabalard
2007-08-20, 11:48 AM
So I ask you...

Is class balance a good thing or a bad thing?Completely overrated; not important in the slightest.

Characters should be different, have totally different levels of power based on their class(es).

all classes should be useful... but that has nothing to do with class balance.

Sucrose
2007-08-20, 11:54 AM
I don't, however, imagine there will be much complaining on online forums, since the posters on such forums are probably above-average at optimization compared to the average player.

Common misconception. While there are undoubtedly cretins who take pleasure in stomping their fellow players into the ground, or making everybody their sidekicks, such players will usually be problem players in other ways, too.

A good player who is skilled at optimization will probably just play characters that are hindered in some way, or that are based around helping their teammates rather than defeating the challenges themselves, or tone down their character power, or provide tips for the individuals who otherwise would be unable to keep up.

In short, a problem player is a problem player, and a good player is a good player, regardless of optimizing skill, so if somebody is worth playing with, he won't get any enjoyment of soloing the challenges while the others watch.

Class balance is important so that a group of buddies who decide to play the game for the first time don't wind up with one of them stealing the spotlight by happening to pick the strongest class. It allows for balance when nobody knows enough to balance the game themselves. As such, I feel that class balance is definitely not overrated.

Roderick_BR
2007-08-20, 12:01 PM
I wholeheartedly agree that some fixing need to be done. High level wizards are supposed to be more powerful than anyone else. Not make everyone else get completely obsolete.
If a player wants to optimize, it should be up to him and his DM to do it. Not be automatically optimized just by selecting a race/class.

Indon
2007-08-20, 12:06 PM
Wizard:
Teleport+Quickened Time Stop+Spam Delayed Blast Fireball+Teleport and everyone is dead KEKEKEKEKE!

Fighter:
Uhh... I hit it with my sword again?

It's not about balancing classes as much as it is about getting rid of the glaring, insanely obvious leviathan of class imbalance.


As opposed to the other Wizard who says, "I cast a Fireball!" Players can and do deal with class imbalance. With balanced classes, they'll just have to deal with player imbalance.



I'm sorry, but I don't see what you're trying to say here. So if I want to be useful, I have to play a specific class? Newsflash: this is why so many people want to have balanced classes in the first place.


So that someone new can join the campaign and they can have something to do, without us having to teach them the whole system first!



Personally, I prefer to play fighters. Tactical combat, maneuvers like trip or disarm, flanking... this is what draws me to D&D. What has me out looking for other systems to play, however, is the fact that as soon as level 5 I might as well go and hang up my sword, because the wizard and the cleric are out there causing havoc, mayhem, and generalized suffering. Past level 10 it just becomes no contest.

So yes, I want some damned equal footing this time around. :smallmad:

Tome of Battle already gives you sword-wizards. Another good thing about a system in which not every class has to be equal, is that you can have a variety of classes that do anything, at varying power levels. No system with 'class balance' can have the Wizard and Warblade coexisting with the Binder and Fighter. You have to pick one, and you can only have campaigns with one power level based on the selection.

The system is limited, the players are limited.

Mind that I still think D&D as a whole needs tweaking; otherwise I wouldn't care about 4'th edition. But I sure hope they go with versatility over uniformity, or 'balance' in the new system.

TOAOMT
2007-08-20, 12:26 PM
And why do they have to choose? Game balance isn't about every class being the same, it's about every class being good at what they do to the point of being just as worth picking as another and I think game balance could help universality.

Take for example the current argument of "I swing my sword" vs. "Teleport+Quickened Time Stop+Spam Delayed Blast Fireball+Teleport and everyone is dead KEKEKEKEKE!" This is because power of the wizard comes largely from spells that kill things and what is the fighter's specialty supposed to be? Well, it's largely killing things and sometimes taking a hit. So let's assume they revamp that.

Make the fighter better at killing things, the wizard less good at killing things and better at more utilitarian things. Now he's hardly the killing machine he was before, but he can remove illusion and shatter weapons with a spell, manipulate a person's mind or the like. He can do a bunch of things the fighter can't, but the balance is that he will NEVER be as good at winning a fight as the fighter because that's just not his focus.

Congratulations, we've increased universality as well as game balance.

tainsouvra
2007-08-20, 12:29 PM
Is class balance a good thing or a bad thing? Class balance is the entire reason to have a class system in a structured game.

If you didn't care about balance between characters, you wouldn't need rules that limit exactly who can do exactly what exactly when--you would play it freeform, have all the roleplaying and actiony goodness, and not concern yourself with balance at all.

If you're not playing freeform, you're acknowledging that such limits are important, and thus the question cannot be "is it important?", merely "how important is it right now?" If you didn't care about putting limits on power, you wouldn't go out of your way to include limits on power, it's kind of a no-brainer there.

Curmudgeon
2007-08-20, 12:34 PM
Class balance is a useful goal for the game designers, but it's not very important. With all the base and prestige class options available a player can switch to classes that are better suited to the type of game their character's in.

I like to run puzzle dungeons, with lots of traps, and I don't change things just because the PCs are ill-prepared. Wizards like to show off by flying and blasting their way past things, but when they start running low on spells they tend to encourage the party tanks to be "trap detectors". Losing most of your whole party's spells and HP before lunch and never even getting to the first monster tends to make lots of players frustrated, and they quickly realize that Rogues are really useful while they make camp to rest for the next 18 hours.

Whether classes are balanced relative to each other depends on what challenges they'll be asked to face. A long-range blaster will feel out of place if they're stuck in a foggy swamp and can't see anything more than 10' away, but the Monk will be well-suited to that challenge.

Don't worry about class balance. Let the individual players make their own choices, and learn from experience.

Spiryt
2007-08-20, 01:25 PM
Characters should be different, have totally different levels of power based on their class(es).



I 100% agree, that all classes should be different. Nobody is denying this. But "totally different levels on power based on their class(es), is to be fair, a crap.

Like I said, if wizad had to be all power cause he's the master of arcane he should advance much slower than other classes. Situation when wizard is x times more powerful than fighter, while their had basically same adventures raises questions why all adventurers aren't wizards.

All characters should have their uses and everyone should have some meanings of defence/offense against other character. Regardless if they'r heavy optimalized of barely mediocre.
Celerity + Solid Fog + Fly + something = Total own against some tricks that Bard bard can develop have nothing in common with good game.

Cleric can't own Fighter in fight, still having battery of full divine casting. :smallyuk:

OOTS_Rules.
2007-08-20, 01:35 PM
My ideas? Take away cleric's armor, take away most direct damage and save-or-die spells, and destroy Natural Spell, or even wild shape. Spellcasters become more about debuffing and buffing, with some minor damaging stuff.

Tormsskull
2007-08-20, 01:35 PM
I'd say class balance is important, but not to such a degree as most people think.

I like the idea of magic taking a while to cast, not being instant like most spells are.

In my mind a prepared wizard > prepared fighter.
unprepared wizard < prepared fighter.

but the clincher is:

unprepared wizard < unprepared fighter.

Replace wizard with primary magic guy, and fighter with non-primary magic guy for the same result.

Indon
2007-08-20, 01:39 PM
Make the fighter better at killing things, the wizard less good at killing things and better at more utilitarian things. Now he's hardly the killing machine he was before, but he can remove illusion and shatter weapons with a spell, manipulate a person's mind or the like. He can do a bunch of things the fighter can't, but the balance is that he will NEVER be as good at winning a fight as the fighter because that's just not his focus.

Congratulations, we've increased universality as well as game balance.

You haven't increased diversity as much as you would have if you made a new fighter class that was more powerful, and a new wizard class that was more utilitarian.

With that solution, now you have a choice between playing different sets of characters, each of which would have a different gaming experience. Furthermore, if your players are at different levels of optimization ability (and you don't want to impede your optimizers), you can simply play a mixed group and the increased power of your less experienced players will compensate and balance out the group.

Person_Man
2007-08-20, 01:58 PM
It's absolutely essential for new players. New players look at a class, equate the name and crunch of the class with the fluff of what they want to roleplay, and then they run with it. If you have with any new players, you must have built in class balance, otherwise they quickly feel as if they've been left behind or that they're doing something wrong.

But once you've been around the block on a campaign or two, its really not important. You sit down with the other players and the DM, make your PCs together (and understand what everyone is talking about), and come to a consensus about what power level you all roughly want to be at.

Xuincherguixe
2007-08-20, 02:08 PM
For some games, class balance isn't that important. For instance, maybe your game is a space farce. It's probably not that big of a problem if one guy is the Silver Surfer and another is a ham fisted goon who can't use computers, and hates them, and tends to break the consoles constantly. Thus the character who nominated him for the position, the Engineer, gets to have job security. And for some strange reason there's a cute little girl with pig tails.

In D&D which seems to mostly be about rolling dice it definitely is, especially when characters are REALLY limited.

DM: "You see an Ogre. He's big and smelly and angry. He has a club."
Bard: "I want to convince the Ogre that possessions are fleeting, so he can give me the Club."
DM: "Sorry, there are no rules for converting Ogres to Buddhism so you can't." Bard: "Uh. Can I give him a delicious sandwich in exchange for helping us carry the gold?"
DM: "No. There aren't any rules for that either"
Bard: "What can I do?"
DM: "You can sing while the other characters hit the Ogre until it dies?"
Bard: "I sing something Emo about how everything is hopeless and how everything ends in violence."
DM: "There is no Emo in the middle ages. You're pretty much limited to a Ballad about a Princess"
Bard: "Does she at least leap from out of the tower because she's not pretty enough for a prince to rescue her?"
DM: "Nah. It's just about how beautiful she is. All princesses are beautiful."
Bard: "I smash my neck with my harp until I die. I'm going to go watch some Anime."
DM: "The harp has no damage listed. You can't do that."
Bard's player has just walked away.
DM: "Crap. There aren't any rules for how to deal with character's when their players have just walked away in the middle of the session."
Fighter: "Uh, can I share some Ale with the Ogre?"

Tormsskull
2007-08-20, 02:13 PM
In D&D which seems to mostly be about rolling dice it definitely is, especially when characters are REALLY limited.


Characters are only as limited as the players' and the DM's imagination.



*snip example*


That's a very poor DM at work, I'd say. I think D&D 3.5 has gotten too far away from the DM making things up on the fly. Some players have developed the "if it isn't in the book it can't happen" mentality, which was what I loved about older editions: They were purposefully vague.


Not that I'm going to disagree with your general statement of balanced being required, I just had to nitpick at your example and explanation above.

Xuincherguixe
2007-08-20, 02:29 PM
It was mostly extreme exaggeration.

Even if the rules heavily suggested railroading I would still encourage players to try and beat encounters with creativity and insanity.

kpenguin
2007-08-20, 02:51 PM
Well, when you think about the concepts for the classes themselves:

The Wizard says, "I can manipulate the eldritch energies of the universe!"
The Cleric says, "I can draw upon the divine power of the very gods themselves!"
The Fighter says, "I can whack people really, really, hard."

Falrin
2007-08-20, 02:53 PM
What is the obsession with Magic being more powerfull then Melee? Why do people feel the need that a High-Level Wizard should wipe the floor with everybody else?

"Oh, but magic can stop time, and rain fire from above, and polymorph in a Great Red Wyrm, and it's uber cool !!!"

Well now you're just stating that

a) Magic is overpowered
or
b) A fighter should be able to match that time-stopping killing machine

It's just that Novels & Movies has brainwashed your minds to think Magic should own everything.

D&D is not a Novel, nor a Movie. Yes, it's based on some of those, but it is a Game.

Ex. When you play Ludo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludo_%28board_game%29) the red tokens don't move faster. Even if red was the Colour of the Gods and Scientist have proven Red moves faster then blue, in the Ludo Red will move as Fast as Blue. Otherwise nobody would want to plays blue and he who has to will hate it.

Blue: I roll 6. (Moves 6 spaces)
Red: I roll 1, but since I'm red I get a +6 Bonus. (Moves 7 spaces)

This is exactly the same as a 20th lvl Fighter Vs a 20th LvL Wizard.

Yes: A 20th LvL wizard should be able to stop the time, teleport to the enemies general and cast dominate/confusion/...

And: A 20th LvL Fighter should not only be able to wad through sais army, but also 'resist' tha time-stop in a certain way.

When a person can stop time, why shouldn't another one be able to resist this?

Behold_the_Void
2007-08-20, 03:28 PM
What is the obsession with Magic being more powerfull then Melee? Why do people feel the need that a High-Level Wizard should wipe the floor with everybody else?

"Oh, but magic can stop time, and rain fire from above, and polymorph in a Great Red Wyrm, and it's uber cool !!!"

Well now you're just stating that

a) Magic is overpowered
or
b) A fighter should be able to match that time-stopping killing machine

It's just that Novels & Movies has brainwashed your minds to think Magic should own everything.

D&D is not a Novel, nor a Movie. Yes, it's based on some of those, but it is a Game.

Ex. When you play Ludo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludo_%28board_game%29) the red tokens don't move faster. Even if red was the Colour of the Gods and Scientist have proven Red moves faster then blue, in the Ludo Red will move as Fast as Blue. Otherwise nobody would want to plays blue and he who has to will hate it.

Blue: I roll 6. (Moves 6 spaces)
Red: I roll 1, but since I'm red I get a +6 Bonus. (Moves 7 spaces)

This is exactly the same as a 20th lvl Fighter Vs a 20th LvL Wizard.

Yes: A 20th LvL wizard should be able to stop the time, teleport to the enemies general and cast dominate/confusion/...

And: A 20th LvL Fighter should not only be able to wad through sais army, but also 'resist' tha time-stop in a certain way.

When a person can stop time, why shouldn't another one be able to resist this?

Couldn't have said it better myself.

D&D is a game. Baseline class balance should be considered essential to its execution, because it's intended to allow everyone to enjoy themselves. Personally, I'm not a fan of Wizards are uber and everyone else sucks in comparison. I don't have fun constantly playing second-fiddle to other people, and I'll bet a lot of people would agree.

The optimization point doesn't really stand either. Yes, optimization levels make a difference, but if all classes are balanced with each other even the less-optimized characters still have the chance to contribute.

As it stands, a low-optimization fighter is useless compared to a low-optimization wizard. When there's the same optimization level going on and one class is still useless, there's obviously a problem.

Indon
2007-08-20, 03:33 PM
The optimization point doesn't really stand either. Yes, optimization levels make a difference, but if all classes are balanced with each other even the less-optimized characters still have the chance to contribute.

As it stands, a low-optimization fighter is useless compared to a low-optimization wizard. When there's the same optimization level going on and one class is still useless, there's obviously a problem.

I disagree with this. Based on posts on this forum about how class balance works in application, I'd say a Wizard is well-balanced with a party when no party member is at all optimized. (The specific post I'd point you do had a name like "Class balance in practice", or somesuch, I think?)

Thoughtbot360
2007-08-20, 06:46 PM
Wizard:
Teleport+Quickened Time Stop+Spam Delayed Blast Fireball+Teleport and everyone is dead KEKEKEKEKE!

Fighter:
Uhh... I hit it with my sword again?

It's not about balancing classes as much as it is about getting rid of the glaring, insanely obvious leviathan of class imbalance.



Ah, then it isn't a mechanical problem as much as it is a player problem. Well, as it happens, different groups develop different styles. Some like to optimize, some don't. What players want out of balance however, is that there exists a way for a fighter to outshine a wizard. Because let's face it, in 3.5 even a poorly built wizard can absolutely destroy your uber-optimized, template-ridden, loot-loaded fighter.



I'm sorry, but I don't see what you're trying to say here. So if I want to be useful, I have to play a specific class? Newsflash: this is why so many people want to have balanced classes in the first place.



Personally, I prefer to play fighters. Tactical combat, maneuvers like trip or disarm, flanking... this is what draws me to D&D. What has me out looking for other systems to play, however, is the fact that as soon as level 5 I might as well go and hang up my sword, because the wizard and the cleric are out there causing havoc, mayhem, and generalized suffering. Past level 10 it just becomes no contest.

So yes, I want some damned equal footing this time around. :smallmad:

I personally agree, and even play with the idea of giving fighters Death attack (like assassins) of something similar, just so they can one-up the casters with all their save-or-die spells.

I will say this however, at low levels the game is more like this:

Fighter: I Great Cleave and Great Cleave and Great Cleave and Great Cleve with my Great Cleavage and everyone is dead! KEKEKEKEKE!

Sorcerer: I uh....cast magic missile again?

But switching the short end of the stick back on the fighter in later levels while giving the casters all the good stuff isn't going to make it "balanced"

Supposedly, there is a reason at both low and high levels to use a sword or a spellbook. If Wizards are really so powerful they have to be *extraordinarily* rare for them not to replace the trained soldier. Actually, its important to note that a fighter is not just a guy who can swing a weapon very well (Thats a Barbarian), he's a professional, tactical, army-crushing, feat-heavy monster. And thats is at low levels, once he gets past 5th level he should be pulling crazy ass ****, perhaps even mimicing some spells in a sense. If he can't then armies will look like this: Wizards will be given (I mistyped this the first time) land and other crap, and all who would (or can only be) fighters will just be trained as warriors (the crappy NPC class) instead because training as a fighter would be a dead career choice (its Greater Weapon Specialization vs. Polymorph. Magic is better, case closed). Its unfair and unrealistic to say that the fighter is just a guy who "hits people really, really hard." Why even have stats for levels going on up to 20, if a fighter wasn't a desired martial artist that was useful in of itself for some reason?

But lets look at Final Fantasy warrior type classes (But not the basic warrior class, he's boring...) for some idea of the scope that fighters might achieve in the world of the fantastic:

-Dragoons can jump miles into the air and land on an opponent -spear first- with unnerving accuracy.
-Samurai (at least in FF tactics) can draw out spirits in a sword and cause many effects not unlike magic (so this might not be flavor you'll looking for)
-Archers really need some ability to pull off trick shots and hit impossible targets (Wizards with Ray spells and True Strike can are more eagle-eyed than any archer character. Also I know this isn't really a Final Fantasy power, but I thought I'd suggest it.)
-Ninja can dual wield and throw stuff! :smallbiggrin: :smallsmile: :smallconfused: :smallfrown: Ok, I'll go home now...*cries*
-Dark Knights can sacrifice their hit points to deal more damage
-Paladins can take hits for teammates...apparently by teleporting in front of them. (I'll stick to the Shield Other spell, k'thks)
-Most final fantasy characters can do devastating desperation moves, but warrior-types are the only ones that have any good ones.
-Look, I could go on with the final fantasy stuff, but I really want to talk about how stagnant fight scenes are in D&D. Basically two guys stand in place and bash each other with their weapons. I roll to hit, I roll damage, then he hits, he rolls damage. Yawnsville! (God, I miss Uncle Figgy) In movies (and in real life) fights are mobile and dynamic. People jump on tables, hide behind cover, kick barrels towards a mob of charging men, and set up an ambush for someone -while the big fight has already broke out-, all while looking for an opening their opponents left wide open. The ability to jump, grapple, tumble and sprint after someone is not a minor advantage in such a chaotic environment, and pansy bookworm mages or people who've only dabbled in fighting (like bards or clerics) will have trouble. Mages aren't mobile, at least not physically, so thats another advantage warriors have over them. The problem is D&D as it is has high-level challenges with more and more damage reduction and less say, chances to dodge the incoming fire breath, so the Batman who casts Ray of Cluminess beat the dragon, not the athletic archer who got into position just on that high-up cliff and shot the black arrow into that one patch of skin over the heart not protected by armor-like dragon scales or knight character that was designed with the heroic imagery of the knight in shining armor slaying a dragon in mind.

....I'm done

nagora
2007-08-20, 07:10 PM
So I ask you...

Is class balance a good thing or a bad thing?

Given a group who play together and evenly split all XP, obviously it is undesirable for one player to start to dominate all encounters and the others just stand about while s/he deals with it; that's just common sense.

It's also probably impossible to perfect, but the designers should try.

psychoticbarber
2007-08-20, 07:14 PM
I don't think the classes can or should be perfectly balanced, as that would destroy verismilitude:

Swinging a sword is not equal to "telling the laws of physics to shut up and sit down".

That being said...
The classes need to be much better balanced than they currently are. Even if fighters will not be the equal of high level wizards, they should be able to contribute meaningfully and should definitely be more useful than a wizard in certain situations (I'm not talking the "Wizard can't cast now" situations only, though that's a good start).

Jayabalard
2007-08-20, 08:57 PM
What is the obsession with Magic being more powerfull then Melee? Why do people feel the need that a High-Level Wizard should wipe the floor with everybody else?

"Oh, but magic can stop time, and rain fire from above, and polymorph in a Great Red Wyrm, and it's uber cool !!!"

Well now you're just stating that

a) Magic is overpowered
or
b) A fighter should be able to match that time-stopping killing machine
Yes, magic is overpowered. it should be. The choice is A.



It's just that Novels & Movies has brainwashed your minds to think Magic should own everything. Add in Mythology, and common sense. it doesn't matter how well you swing a sword, if someone stops time, you're pretty much boned.



Ex. When you play Ludo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludo_%28board_game%29) the red tokens don't move faster. Even if red was the Colour of the Gods and Scientist have proven Red moves faster then blue, in the Ludo Red will move as Fast as Blue. Otherwise nobody would want to plays blue and he who has to will hate it.

Blue: I roll 6. (Moves 6 spaces)
Red: I roll 1, but since I'm red I get a +6 Bonus. (Moves 7 spaces)

This is exactly the same as a 20th lvl Fighter Vs a 20th LvL Wizard.
your example has nothing to do with a lvl 20 fighter vs a lvl 20 wizard.

I have absolutely no problem with the fact that I am mechanically weaker than almost any other class. I don't want to be able to swing my sword and generate magic effects. If I wanted to cast spells, or even fake casting spells by using "maneuvers" I wouldn't be playing a fighter.


Class balance is the entire reason to have a class system in a structured game.

If you didn't care about balance between characters, you wouldn't need rules that limit exactly who can do exactly what exactly when--you would play it freeform, have all the roleplaying and actiony goodness, and not concern yourself with balance at all.

If you're not playing freeform, you're acknowledging that such limits are important, and thus the question cannot be "is it important?", merely "how important is it right now?" If you didn't care about putting limits on power, you wouldn't go out of your way to include limits on power, it's kind of a no-brainer there.False.

Class balance is not the only reason to have a class system, so it is obviously not the "entire reason"

Wanting to have some limits is not the same thing as wanting classes to be balanced. They're completely unrelated. Classes should have limits related to their own class; it isn't important whether the limits of class A match those of class B.

There are an infinite number of shades of gray between "free form gaming" and "wants class balance.


D&D is a game. Baseline class balance should be considered essential to its execution, because it's intended to allow everyone to enjoy themselves. Personally, I'm not a fan of Wizards are uber and everyone else sucks in comparison. I don't have fun constantly playing second-fiddle to other people, and I'll bet a lot of people would agree.Except for specific types of gamers, balance is not necessary for people to enjoy themselves.

horseboy
2007-08-20, 09:09 PM
Swinging a sword is not equal to "telling the laws of physics to shut up and sit down".

I would like to expand on this, if I may.

Dead=Dead.
Mage+spells=dead.
Fighter+5' of cold, sharp, naked steel=/=dead.
Fighter=/=mage

The point is to make the mob dead. At higher levels, the fighter simply can't do this in D&D. This is a fundamental flaw in the HP mechanic. It has become exacerbated now that people can reach higher levels more readily. Short of, oh, I don't know, giving the fighter the Vorpal ability at 10 or something I really don't see how to fix it.

But all in all, balance good, D&D bad, I vote for option C) Nerf spells and buff high level fighters.

Krellen
2007-08-20, 09:14 PM
Add in Mythology, and common sense. it doesn't matter how well you swing a sword, if someone stops time, you're pretty much boned.
D&D magic is leaps and bounds more powerful than mythological magic. Name one mythological figure - gods included - that has stopped time.

I venture you have to look into comic books to find one. Well, that or the Bible - but do you really want to claim Wizards are as - and should be - powerful as Jehovah?

Circe was defeated by Ulysses, a regular Fighter. Aragorn was greater than the Mouth of Sauron, who was the greatest living sorcerer on Middle Earth. Sauron - who was as close to a god as the Second Age of Middle Earth got - was struck down by a paltry little human warrior named Isildur. Grendel - essentially the Tarrasque - was defeated single-handedly by Beowulf. And I haven't even started on Heracles.

Simply put, if you want to use mythology as your basis, sword should beat magic every time.

Duraska
2007-08-20, 09:26 PM
Let me preface this by saying that, yes, everyone is entitled to play D&D however they wish. It just so happens that my groups must play radically different than most, because...

NO, class "balancing" is unimportant in my book!

There, I said it.

The problem is, the D&D rule books are mostly a large collection of rules on how your character can kill things. After all, it would be rather silly for the rule books to talk about common Ranger hobbies, and popular Bardic sonnets.

However, this doesn't mean that the ability to quickly kill a room of half-drow demi-liches is the only litmus test for whether or not your character is worthwhile. What about the deeds he does outside of combat? Has he ever re-opened peace negotiations between two warring kingdoms? Has he ever snuck into a heavily guarded fortress and stolen a holy artifact without being spotted? Has he ever helped rebuilt a town that was destroyed by a demon invasion? Has he ever worked tirelessly to decipher ancient scrolls that reveal new forms of magic?

All of these things are acts every bit as heroic as slaying a dragon. Not all of them can be done by just any run-of-the-mill adventurer. You don't need to be a wizard/cleric/druid to be a hero. Heck, you don't even really need class levels to be an important person. If your DM can actually design a thought-provoking, interesting campaign that has a solid mix of combat, politics and problem-solving without becoming a "monty haul," then you may realize that each class has it's own importance, and balancing all the classes based on how efficiently they kill things isn't important at all.

Again, maybe my groups play differently than yours...

horseboy
2007-08-20, 09:26 PM
D&D magic is leaps and bounds more powerful than mythological magic. Name one mythological figure - gods included - that has stopped time.

Yeah, whoever created the "Time Stop" spell should have their Game Writing Credentials revoked. Their boss should have been publicly tarred and feathered for letting it get through. I mean what were they thinking? There's a lot of those in this game.

Jayabalard
2007-08-20, 10:02 PM
D&D magic is leaps and bounds more powerful than mythological magic. Name one mythological figure - gods included - that has stopped time.

I venture you have to look into comic books to find one. Well, that or the Bible - but do you really want to claim Wizards are as - and should be - powerful as Jehovah?

Circe was defeated by Ulysses, a regular Fighter. Aragorn was greater than the Mouth of Sauron, who was the greatest living sorcerer on Middle Earth. Sauron - who was as close to a god as the Second Age of Middle Earth got - was struck down by a paltry little human warrior named Isildur. Grendel - essentially the Tarrasque - was defeated single-handedly by Beowulf. And I haven't even started on Heracles.

Simply put, if you want to use mythology as your basis, sword should beat magic every time.In many cases D&D magic does indeed outstrip mythological magic; much the same: in many cases D&D melee does indeed outstrip mythological melee. D&D, especially at the high end, represents pretty high powered fantasy.

Note that I was adding those two to the list, not making them the exclusive list.

Just off the top of my head:
Bearing an hourglass by Piers Anthony (Chronos, the incarnation of time)
The Girl, the Gold Watch and Everything by John D. MacDonald. (the watch)

Both feature time stoppage; it's not hard to pick out a couple from comic books either (like you noted), the obvious one being the Time gem/infinity gauntlet, though I'm don't doubt that there are some other examples.

Odysseus had help from a god (Hermes), first warning him of Circe, and second telling him what Herb he needed to protect himself from circe's magic. That's hardly a case of sword over sorcery; it's closer to diplomacy cheese.

Isildur was not strictly human; bear in mind he was well over 200 and still in top fighting shape when he cut the ring from Sauron's hand. The sword he used was far from ordinary, and Sauron was more than a little overconfident as I recall.

I'm not sure how you're equating Grendel and the Tarrasque... it's been a long time since I've read Beowulf, but I don't recall a resemblance. Nor do I remember Grendel being a wizard.

I'm not sure why you even mention Hercules... as a demi-god he doesn't seem to offer anything to the sword side in sword vs sorcery.... at best it'd be "Son of a god" vs sorcery (I'm assuming that you mean that he beat some sorcerers, though I don't really remember it).

Krellen
2007-08-20, 10:18 PM
Just off the top of my head:
Bearing an hourglass by Piers Anthony (Chronos, the incarnation of time)
The Girl, the Gold Watch and Everything by John D. MacDonald. (the watch)
Neither of which is mythology.

Now, on to the rebuttals: not all are features of sword beating a mage - but all are instances of sword beating magic. In mythology, monsters are magic. So are gods. So Heracles overcomes the gods, and also does unearthly feats with no magic ability - and Grendel has been stated as an inspiration for the Tarrasque.

Thoughtbot360
2007-08-21, 12:36 AM
I don't think the classes can or should be perfectly balanced, as that would destroy verismilitude:

Swinging a sword is not equal to "telling the laws of physics to shut up and sit down".

Thats just it. A wizard technically doesn't "tell the laws of physics to shut up and sit down" Magic is actually part of the laws of physics in the game world. That armor interferes with arcane magic is an example (kinda) of a law of magic. Magic has limitations (although as more sourcebooks present more spells, that wish spell is looking less and less powerful as the ability to emulate your wish with other magic doesn't screw you over) and supposedly at one point, the wizard hits a ceiling.

What would be nice is if each caster class is ultimately based on achieving one task that is the pentacle of the art. Kind of like how alchemist ultimately hoped to turn lead into gold, but with spell. Each class is about doing something truly fantastic (but not game breaking, like the best Healers can Raise the Dead, or the best Witches can turn someone into a frog, but you cannot hope do both, and ). And you can only focus on one school of magic (You do this anyway because the Mystic Theruge and other multiclass casters suck, but in D&D as it stands right now, the Wizard can turn lead into gold, grant himself a permanent size and intelligence increase, and turn any inanimate obstacle into a gerbil, and all that can be done with just Polymorph any Object! He can also auto-kill anything with too little hit points, supercede the invention of the 2-way radio with the power of telepathy, trap a person in a Forcecage, Make a Clone body for himself, Force someone to dance, Banish a demon back to hell, Summon the Demon in the first place, Raise Zombies, and get all those Illusions and Divinations. Sure they can't heal, but thats about all they can't do, so being "just" a wizard isn't being "just" anything. Being "just" a Necromancer or "just" a Time/Space mage is another story.) Upon reaching "mastery" of a certain magical class, you gain the ability to cast a rare spell that is the focus of all whole specialize in this brand of magic: Necromancers attain Lichdom and Immortality, Time Mages have the ability to travel back in time (expensive, costs something like "insane amount of magic point x number of rounds squared", so you go back, warn the party of their imminent demise, and curse that you're out of magic. All earlier time magic is haste/slow/time stop and moving forward in time and crap like that) Planar mages, after spending their entire lives teleporting and summoning/banishing/binding outsiders finally gain the ability travel to the worlds those outsiders came from, etc.

Meanwhile, in this hypothetical world I'm talking about, the reason to be a fighter is actually because they have an actually use. The best way to do this is to say that all types of magic meets up with monsters that are resistant to it, but physical damage isn't impeded until they run into something incorporeal or with heavy DR and then you might want some magical support (but even then, there should be a way to circumvent that armor/resistance to your type of magic/the fact that your sword just phases harmlessly through the ghost, its just easier to have a diverse party because someone with the right skills can deal with it better than you can "circumvent" your weaknesses.)


Neither of which is mythology.

Now, on to the rebuttals: not all are features of sword beating a mage - but all are instances of sword beating magic. In mythology, monsters are magic. So are gods. So Heracles overcomes the gods, and also does unearthly feats with no magic ability - and Grendel has been stated as an inspiration for the Tarrasque.

Actually, this brings me back to the begining. In a fantasy world, magic is a real force in people's lives. Monsters are magic, or at least, most are, and humans have to have survived monsters for a time before Spellcasting was prefected (it took us thousands and thousands of years to develop spoken language alone, so thats no verbal components right there.) The way most legends have it is that the nastiest monsters live in isolation in a cave somewhere and some warrior, despite all the likelihood that him failing, defeats the monster in a climatic battle. Thats 85% of folklore right there. So it makes sense that sword can at least stand up to magic even if its the definite under dog. Also, magic seems kind of easy to study for, cerebral difficulties or fanatical religious devotion be damned. To learn a martial class you have to spend days and days of drilling yourself in the field, riding on horseback, pushing your limits, all for that high Base Attack bonus, some more hit points and few feats while the scarecrow bookworm next to you can just cast "Time Stop" and the next thing you know, the enemy is dead before you can so much as work yourself into a Rage, String your bow, Close for a full attack next round or line your horse up for a Spirited Charge (-_-). Really, you might as well retire your character and make a caster.

However, I do have to say I find it strange that the Tarrasque was inspired by Grendel. I mean, what the f*ck was Beowulf (that is not a typo, I asked what Beowolf was. I mean, you need to a wish and helluva damage to beat this (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/tarrasque.htm). And Beowulf beat Grendel by tearing off its arms and it bleed to death. The Tarrasque is immune to bleeding, as a result if its Regeneration, and besides, said Regeneration would regrow his limbs. The Tarrasque is just the Omega weapon of D&D, see the Weapon rule (http://project-apollo.net/text/rpg.html) if you don't know what I'm talking about:


# Weapon Rule
There's always a hidden creature who is much harder to defeat than even the ultimate bad guy's final, world-annihilating form. It's lucky for all concerned that this hidden creature prefers to stay hidden rather than trying to take over the world himself, because he'd probably win. As a corollary, whatever reward you get for killing the hidden creature is basically worthless because by the time you're powerful enough to defeat him, you don't need it any more. )

Edit: I meant to keep talking about Beowulf and how he could've taken on the "Tarrasque" and its mother like he did, but I got nothing now.

nagora
2007-08-21, 03:21 AM
I would like to expand on this, if I may.

Dead=Dead.
Mage+spells=dead.
Fighter+5' of cold, sharp, naked steel=/=dead.
Fighter=/=mage

The point is to make the mob dead. At higher levels, the fighter simply can't do this in D&D. This is a fundamental flaw in the HP mechanic.

Well, I think it's more a flaw in 3rd edition which inflated the HP count hugely, and part of that mess was scrapping zero-level characters. Nargora (the 13th level AD&D fighter) could probably slaughter a thousand-strong mob of normal people under 1st edition if he wanted to (albeit it would take well over an hour).

Even on the battlefield where resistance is much higher than a mob he could (and did on several occassions) act as a shock-unit who could disrupt almost any normal army formation. Two such fighters really could stand back-to-back and ring themselves with a heap of the dead that the attackers would have difficulty climbing. Add in a healer or potions and it became clear why, in the real Greyhawk, every country was ruled by high level characters and many of them were fighters.

Being surrounded by 0-level NPCs also threw the monsters into a starker relief too and gave a sort of grounding to the world. There were issues with it too, of course, but over all 0-level being the norm for the NPC's world was a good thing.

The difference between Nagora at 13th level and the highest level magic-user in the party (12th) was actually quite slim, and under 1ed these were characters nearing retirement age.


It has become exacerbated now that people can reach higher levels more readily.

Yes; one of the more obvious 3e design flaws. Soon to be made even worse, I suspect, in 4e.


Short of, oh, I don't know, giving the fighter the Vorpal ability at 10 or something I really don't see how to fix it.


Go onto eBay and get yourself a set of 1e books.

Thoughtbot360
2007-08-21, 04:12 AM
Well, I think it's more a flaw in 3rd edition which inflated the HP count hugely, and part of that mess was scrapping zero-level characters. Nargora (the 13th level AD&D fighter) could probably slaughter a thousand-strong mob of normal people under 1st edition if he wanted to (albeit it would take well over an hour).

Even on the battlefield where resistance is much higher than a mob he could (and did on several occassions) act as a shock-unit who could disrupt almost any normal army formation. Two such fighters really could stand back-to-back and ring themselves with a heap of the dead that the attackers would have difficulty climbing. Add in a healer or potions and it became clear why, in the real Greyhawk, every country was ruled by high level characters and many of them were fighters.

Being surrounded by 0-level NPCs also threw the monsters into a starker relief too and gave a sort of grounding to the world. There were issues with it too, of course, but over all 0-level being the norm for the NPC's world was a good thing.

The difference between Nagora at 13th level and the highest level magic-user in the party (12th) was actually quite slim, and under 1ed these were characters nearing retirement age.



Yes; one of the more obvious 3e design flaws. Soon to be made even worse, I suspect, in 4e.



Go onto eBay and get yourself a set of 1e books.

So, what was the major differences between 1e and 2e? (I have some 2nd edition books)

nagora
2007-08-21, 04:58 AM
So, what was the major differences between 1e and 2e? (I have some 2nd edition books)

I've never seen a 2ed book so I'm not sure, sorry. Matthew might be able to help if he's reading this thread.

Droodle
2007-08-21, 05:42 AM
D&D magic is leaps and bounds more powerful than mythological magic. Name one mythological figure - gods included - that has stopped time.Piper from Charmed.:smallsmile:

Circe was defeated by Ulysses, a regular Fighter. Aragorn was greater than the Mouth of Sauron, who was the greatest living sorcerer on Middle Earth. Sauron - who was as close to a god as the Second Age of Middle Earth got - was struck down by a paltry little human warrior named Isildur. Grendel - essentially the Tarrasque - was defeated single-handedly by Beowulf. And I haven't even started on Heracles.

Simply put, if you want to use mythology as your basis, sword should beat magic every time.Good point.


What would be nice is if each caster class is ultimately based on achieving one task that is the pentacle of the art. This is a really good idea. Just as fighters (should) get progressively better but more specialized feats as they follow their feat chains, wizards should be the same way. At lower levels, the wizard is more of a generalist...but, as he gains power, he needs to specialize more an more.... for more or less the same reason that you don't usually find an astrophysicist who is also a microbiologist and a paleobotanist. In the real world, the more educated you get, the more specialized you get. I don't see why D&D needs to be any different.

nagora
2007-08-21, 05:53 AM
Grendel - essentially the Tarrasque - was defeated single-handedly by Beowulf.

I'd love to know why you think Grendel has any connection with the Tarrasque at all. I can't see any similarity. Grendel was just some sort of troll.

Hannes
2007-08-21, 06:11 AM
Piper from Charmed.:smallsmile:


He said MYTHOLOGY, not 20th/21st century fantasy.

Droodle
2007-08-21, 06:13 AM
He said MYTHOLOGY, not 20th/21st century fantasy.Had your sense of humor removed, huh? It was a joke.

EDIT: Incidentally, mythology actually has a fairly broad meaning. For example, my suggestion of Piper would have been wholly relevant if we were allowing popular mythology to enter the discussion.

kpenguin
2007-08-21, 06:21 AM
D&D magic is leaps and bounds more powerful than mythological magic. Name one mythological figure - gods included - that has stopped time.


Well, when Athena restrained Achilles in the first book of the Iliad, it could be interpreted as stopping time. After all, no man could see her and Achilles just looked at Athena and talked to her. If there was no time stop, then the Achaens in the camp would be looking at Achilles very oddly indeed.

Morty
2007-08-21, 06:41 AM
I don't know why everyone gets so worked up on the wizard/fighter balance. Alright, you're powerful wizard. So what? You're still as vunerable to being stabbed in the head as everyone else, in fact even more than most people because you studied books in closed tower whole your life. And your spells won't help you much if you're in reach of angry fighter with morningstar, because it'll take him much less time to split your head in quarters that it'd take you to cast a spell.

Khanderas
2007-08-21, 06:45 AM
Just as fighters (should) get progressively better but more specialized feats as they follow their feat chains, wizards should be the same way. At lower levels, the wizard is more of a generalist...but, as he gains power, he needs to specialize more an more.... for more or less the same reason that you don't usually find an astrophysicist who is also a microbiologist and a paleobotanist. In the real world, the more educated you get, the more specialized you get. I don't see why D&D needs to be any different.

I think this is a very, VERY good idea / point.

Droodle
2007-08-21, 06:46 AM
I don't know why everyone gets so worked up on the wizard/fighter balance. Alright, you're powerful wizard. So what? You're still as vunerable to being stabbed in the head as everyone else, in fact even more than most people because you studied books in closed tower whole your life. And your spells won't help you much if you're in reach of angry fighter with morningstar, because it'll take him much less time to split your head in quarters that it'd take you to cast a spell.You should have picked a better example. The wizard probably has a higher dex than the morningstar wielding fighter....and might even have improved initiative. In other words, the wizard sees the angry fighter, probably wins initiative, casts fly (if he isn't already under the effects of overland flight), and gets out of range. At this point, stabbing him in the head is going to be a bit of a problem for the fighter, don't you think? Now, if the wizard doesn't win initiative, he'll probably still survive the initial attack (which probably won't be a full attack)....at which point he can cast flight and get out of range (or maybe just take a 5 foot step and do something nasty).

Morty
2007-08-21, 06:47 AM
You should have picked a better example. The wizard probably has a higher dex than the morningstar wielding fighter....and might even have improved initiative. In other words, the wizard sees the angry fighter, casts fly (if he isn't already under the effects of overland flight), and gets out of range. At this point, stabbing him in the head is going to be a bit of a problem for the fighter, don't you think?

I was talking hypothetically, not in terms of D&D 3.5. Many people here seems to think that fighter shouldn't be able to take on wizard no matter what system we use, and I tried to prove that it's not true. Besides, the example I use is from literature.

Droodle
2007-08-21, 06:54 AM
I was talking hypothetically, not in terms of D&D 3.5. Many people here seems to think that fighter shouldn't be able to take on wizard no matter what system we use, and I tried to prove that it's not true. Besides, the example I use is from literature.Gotcha. In that case, I agree with your point.

Spiryt
2007-08-21, 06:54 AM
You should have picked a better example. The wizard probably has a higher dex than the morningstar wielding fighter....and might even have improved initiative. In other words, the wizard sees the angry fighter, casts fly (if he isn't already under the effects of overland flight), and gets out of range. At this point, stabbing him in the head is going to be a bit of a problem for the fighter, don't you think?

You gave an example straight from 3.5, and completely missed Mort's point. He know that in 3.5 fighter will loose that situation, but his point is that he should not. Fly and overland flight are completely overpowered. Spell that allows to fly so well shouldn't be cast so fast, allowing Wizard to survive such situation.

Besides can't see why morningstar fighter should have worse Dex than Mage.

Jayabalard
2007-08-21, 06:58 AM
Neither of which is mythology.

Now, on to the rebuttals: not all are features of sword beating a mage - but all are instances of sword beating magic. In mythology, monsters are magic. So are gods. So Heracles overcomes the gods, and also does unearthly feats with no magic ability - and Grendel has been stated as an inspiration for the Tarrasque./shrug Nor did I claim they were... like I said "Note that I was adding those two to the list, not making them the exclusive list." The list includes "Novels, Movies, mythology".

Time stop is far from unknown in fiction, and while it's not explicitly referred to as "time stop" it does happen in mythology from time to time (the above-mentioned Achilles and Athena scene).

As to the rebuttals: less than half of your examples feature a sword beating a mage; the first is not sword over mage, it's get god warns of how to block the magic, then use diplomacy (ie, make her fall in love with you). Grendel is Sword vs troll... he has nothing to do with the tarrasque and even if he did that wouldn't be relevant; and hercules doesn't help the sword vs sorcery argument, as he's a demi-god.

Droodle
2007-08-21, 06:59 AM
You gave an example straight from 3.5, and completely missed Mort's point. He know that in 3.5 fighter will loose that situation, but his point is that he should not. Fly and overland flight are completely overpowered. Spell that allows to fly so well shouldn't be casted so fast, allowing Wizard to survive such situation.I believe you've been Ninja'd. You do bring up another good point, though. In 2E, because of how they worked initiative, speed factors, etc it was actually fairly easy to disrupt a wizard who was casting a spell. While a 2E wizard was still somewhat broken, the way 3E re-worked actions and initiative really did a lot to make the wizard even more unbalanced.


Besides can't see why morningstar fighter should have worse Dex than Mage.Because he's probably wearing heavy armor and needs strength and constitution far more than a good dex score.

SITB
2007-08-21, 07:06 AM
Bringing "Novels, Movies and mythology" isn't a very good idea. After all, most of the cited examples are bound to correspond to "Theory Of Narrative Causality" (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheoryOfNarrativeCausality).

Spiryt
2007-08-21, 07:12 AM
You do bring up another good point, though. In 2E, because of how they worked initiative, speed factors, etc it was actually fairly easy to disrupt a wizard who was casting a spell. While a 2E wizard was still somewhat broken, the way 3E re-worked actions and initiative really did a lot to make the wizard even more unbalanced.

Because he's probably wearing heavy armor and needs strength and constitution far more than a good dex score.

That's why I believe that factors as initiative and abilities need serious reworking and balancing.
If all 6 abilities would make use to every character it would be much more balabced.

For example - yeah, one Fighter can max Str and Con, dumping Dex to be though and powerful, compensating his clumsiness with heavier armor.
But the second one will take super Dex instead of Con. He will not be so though but will be able to quickly kill a Wizard, for example.
That situation of course take place in 3.5. But you stated yourself Con is far more important to fighter than Dex. So it needs to be improved.

Jayabalard
2007-08-21, 07:16 AM
Bringing "Novels, Movies and mythology" isn't a very good idea. After all, most of the cited examples are bound to correspond to "Theory Of Narrative Causality" (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheoryOfNarrativeCausality).They're still useful, you just have to read more into the story background and less into what the main character does.

It's not really important that the barbarian main character kills the power wizard; the part that is important is what the powerful wizard has been doing up to that point, which is most likely beating anyone else (fighter or otherwise) that dared to cross him, perhaps even some that were more powerful than the main character.

Most stories where sword defeats sorcery do not imply that the sorcery is weaker; quite the contrary, those stories are interesting because they show the stronger (The sorcerer) being defeated by the weaker (the fighter). That's what makes them good stories.

Droodle
2007-08-21, 08:21 AM
That's why I believe that factors as initiative and abilities need serious reworking and balancing.
If all 6 abilities would make use to every character it would be much more balanced.To be honest, I think the effect of ability scores should be greatly reduced, with more weight going to one's character level, class and feat choices, feats, and tactics.

nagora
2007-08-21, 08:27 AM
Most stories where sword defeats sorcery do not imply that the sorcery is weaker; quite the contrary, those stories are interesting because they show the stronger (The sorcerer) being defeated by the weaker (the fighter). That's what makes them good stories.

I agree, but you have to be cautious when comparing a form of drama where only one person has to be entertained (a story's reader) and a group activity like an RPG session. Too much imbalance in the group is a problem in that context.

To an extent, Ars Magica takes the approach you are talking about by saying that the PCs are all mages with some minor hangers on. While that's fair enough, it is a different sort of game from D&D.

Falrin
2007-08-21, 08:50 AM
Yes, magic is overpowered. it should be. The choice is A.

Why?

Personally I think a Poisoned Sneak Attacks should be overpowered. You actually hit somebody in his special spots with a Deadly Poison? So that should be at least 2d6/LvL at 90 Ft range with a 'No Save' 2d10 Con Poison'.



Add in Mythology, and common sense. it doesn't matter how well you swing a sword, if someone stops time, you're pretty much boned.

At higher LvLs it shouldn't be about the sword anymore, It should be about the man who wields it.
When somebody stops Time you and I would be boned, but a 20th LvL fighter shouldn't. With all his willpower he should surpres the effect and as if 80k Lb were pressing down on him rise up and charge the Evil Wizard.

People should tops thinking that a Fighter 20 = 'I can smash things very hard'. He's a hero, a battlehardend warrior that can (should) face dragons and mighty sorcerors.



your example has nothing to do with a lvl 20 fighter vs a lvl 20 wizard.

My example states: Red is Mechanicly Stronger then Blue. A Wizard Is mechanicly stronger then a Fighter. It's not fun to play Blue when there's someone playing red.



I have absolutely no problem with the fact that I am mechanically weaker than almost any other class. I don't want to be able to swing my sword and generate magic effects. If I wanted to cast spells, or even fake casting spells by using "maneuvers" I wouldn't be playing a fighter.

If you have no problem more power to you, but when is the last time you played a straight fighter in a party with a Full Caster?

Fighters shouldn't have Magical effects, the abbilities they should have just look like em. Ex. Freedom of movement: A Mobility fighter should gain somewhere a Freedom of Movement effect #/day. Is this magicle? No, this is a superior way of flexible movement no common man has ever witnessed or should be capable of, but here our 20th LvL fighter pulls it of instead of getting stuck in a 2nd LvL Spell.


Duraska :

Diplomacy: Bard, not the fighter
Sneaking: Rogue, Not the fighter
Rebuilding: Even an expert can do this, a wall of stone/iron/wish casting mage can do this in 6 seconds.

There is a signifcant distinction between being importent & being competent in a party.
A LvL 5 Expert can be an important Politican in a town, he can not be a competent asset in a 5th LvL party.


Isildur , Beowulf & Hercules Are Perfect Examples of what High LvL fighters should look like.


bear in mind he was well over 200 and still in top fighting shape when he cut the ring from Sauron's hand. The sword he used was far from ordinary

Are you just saying that:
Age effects Mechanic Competence? Ask you local Elf if he agrees.
Top of fighting shape? 20th LvL Fighter is if I recall near the top.
A sword far from ordinary? Something like a +5 vorpal flaming holy sword?

These 3 guys are fighters. They kill evil sorcerors, dragons and giants with there swords. herucles is a Half-God, so what was so special about him? Oh he was a smart man with Inhuman Strenght. Inhuman? Something like 30? Ask you local 20th LvL Fighter.



In the end:

Yes I want my Wizards to fly, cast fireballs, summon monsters and teleport around.
Yes I want my Fighters to stab, hack, take beating and come back without using spells or spell-like abilities.
Yes I want my Wizard to be able to protect himself from these Physical Attacks.
Yes want my High LvL Fighter to at least have a chance to overcome these protections.


Just a note on the side: I'm playing a 12th LvL Cleric right now. My partymembers are: A straight Archery Ranger , a straight melee Ranger and a straight fighter. I fill in 50% of my spells so these guys don't run away/die/get killed the first round in combat. I would be more effective if I'd focus on the enemy instead of that Fighter running from a fear spell, getting stuck on some grease or being confused again.

Indon
2007-08-21, 09:11 AM
My example states: Red is Mechanicly Stronger then Blue. A Wizard Is mechanicly stronger then a Fighter. It's not fun to play Blue when there's someone playing red.


I disagree.

It's absolutely awesome, if you win.

But you don't win because you're more powerful, no. You win because you, say, escape the enemies' cavern hidden under the guise of sheep ('cause there's no way a Fighter with a Warrior entourage can kill a Cyclops). Or you win because you outsmart the witch and she's so damn impressed you get it on with her.

Or you win because you reconcile with God and you finally get that Albatross off your neck (no way that Mariner was killing Life-in-Death).

Or maybe you win by being chopped up into little pieces, reassembled by your Wizard friend and Cleric wife and ressurected for a day, bearing a son, and your _kid_ kills the enemy.

Good stories are not made from being able to one-round things (or, sometimes, beat them at all). That's why so little mythology stars wizards; what the heck does a wizard do that makes a story interesting? Winning isn't interesting.

Jayabalard
2007-08-21, 09:37 AM
Too much imbalance in the group is a problem in that context.Like I said, classes should be useful, but that has nothing to do with them being balanced. Class balance is a bad thing and should not be the focus of the game design.


Why?

Personally I think a Poisoned Sneak Attacks should be overpowered. You actually hit somebody in his special spots with a Deadly Poison? So that should be at least 2d6/LvL at 90 Ft range with a 'No Save' 2d10 Con Poison'.
Sorry, but I can't see a poisoned sneak attack stacking up against dissolving your body by counteracting the rules that allow it to hold together.


At higher LvLs it shouldn't be about the sword anymore, It should be about the man who wields it.
When somebody stops Time you and I would be boned, but a 20th LvL fighter shouldn't. With all his willpower he should surpres the effect and as if 80k Lb were pressing down on him rise up and charge the Evil Wizard. Willpower doesn't enter into it... time has stopped. The fighter is not being affect by the spell... only the wizard is. Resisting that is the same as saying "the fighter should be able to stop time too, just without casting a spell" which is absurd.


People should tops thinking that a Fighter 20 = 'I can smash things very hard'. He's a hero, a battlehardend warrior that can (should) face dragons and mighty sorcerors.Nope, unless he has magical backup, gets lucky, or has narrative causality on his side, dragons and sorcerers should be able to flatten him.


My example states: Red is Mechanicly Stronger then Blue. A Wizard Is mechanicly stronger then a Fighter. It's not fun to play Blue when there's someone playing red. While it may not be not fun to play blue when someone is playing red, it is indeed fun to play a fighter when someone is playing a wizard. There is much more to D&D than how many squares you can move, and having balanced classes is not important to enjoying that game. Being more or less powerful than someone has nothing to do with how much fun the game is.

Your example isn't relevant.


If you have no problem more power to you, but when is the last time you played a straight fighter in a party with a Full Caster? I prefer bards personally (spellsinging or spell-less), but I enjoy playing a straight fighter as well. In D&D I'm NEVER concerned with my power level compared to the other people I'm playing with. It's not a competition.


Fighters shouldn't have Magical effects, the abbilities they should have just look like em. Ex. Freedom of movement: A Mobility fighter should gain somewhere a Freedom of Movement effect #/day. Is this magicle? No, this is a superior way of flexible movement no common man has ever witnessed or should be capable of, but here our 20th LvL fighter pulls it of instead of getting stuck in a 2nd LvL Spell. Nope, then the fighter is just casting a spell without calling it that. If you want that, take some levels in a class with spell casting abilities.


Isildur , Beowulf & Hercules Are Perfect Examples of what High LvL fighters should look like. Isildur is one of the men of the west, Hercules is the son of a god; neither would be playable at first level, since they owe a lot of their power to their heritage.


Are you just saying that:
Age effects Mechanic Competence? Ask you local Elf if he agrees.
Top of fighting shape? 20th LvL Fighter is if I recall near the top.
A sword far from ordinary? Something like a +5 vorpal flaming holy sword?No, I'm saying the the Númenóreans are not equivalent to what we know as a "human" in ability, and since you couldn't play one at level one, hes not really relevant unless you want to claim that level 1 fighters should have that kind of power.


These 3 guys are fighters. They kill evil sorcerors, dragons and giants with there swords. herucles is a Half-God, so what was so special about him? Oh he was a smart man with Inhuman Strenght. Inhuman? Something like 30? Ask you local 20th LvL Fighter. Isildur didn't kill Sauron, and he wasn't without help when cut the ring from his finger; nor did he manage it because he was more powerful than Sauron. Not a good example of sword vs sorcery, and certainly not for an argument for class balance.

Beowulf: Sure, a high level fighter wearing armor that should be able to kill a troll (Grendel) and his mother. And with help (Wiglaf) he should be able to defeat a "dragon" while dieing in the process. I don't disagree. Though I don't recall how his dragon stacked up to a D&D one, so it doesn't really say anything about a D&D fighter defeating an arbitrary D&D dragon, especially since D&D dragons are supposed to be very powerful in general.

Hercules: his strength isn't really on the D&D scale; 30 doesn't even approach it. You could probably call it "arbitrarily large". He doesn't spend much time dealing with spellcasting foes (though he does deal with magical beasts). As the Son of a god, his strength is not the result of advanced experience, so he wqould have had that power at level 1 (and if you want to argue that should be in the game, go for it). He's not relevant to a D&D sword vs sorcery discussion.


Yes I want my Wizards to fly, cast fireballs, summon monsters and teleport around.
Yes I want my Fighters to stab, hack, take beating and come back without using spells or spell-like abilities. actually, you said above that you want him to have spell like abilities, you just don't want to call it that.

rollfrenzy
2007-08-21, 09:40 AM
I agree with you Indon, However, these stories and DnD have not as much in common as you think. DnD is designed to be about combat. you are supposed to fight 4 different things a day. While I agree that storytelling is more fun, and our groups don't come anywhere near four encounters a day, there needs to be some reconciliation between wiz, cod-zilla, and everybody else.

Combat in DnD is a "game within a game" and that game at high levels is like playing chess with one side having four queens.

Sure, all your scenarios of winning are fun, but none of those are necessary if you have a wizard in the party.

Falrin
2007-08-21, 09:42 AM
If You 'win' the cyclop-encounter by escaping.

Now take all Base-Classes and have a look at which classes do this best.

Tormsskull
2007-08-21, 09:47 AM
I agree with you Indon, However, these stories and DnD have not as much in common as you think. DnD is designed to be about combat. you are supposed to fight 4 different things a day.


You are supposed to have 4 encounters a day, as a guideline. Encounter doesn't always = fight. Sure, combat is going to be a big part of a standard D&D campaign, but if it is the only thing that a particular campaign is about then the DM should restrict/modify classes accordingly.

Jayabalard
2007-08-21, 09:48 AM
DnD is designed to be about combat. you are supposed to fight 4 different things a day. /shrug
D&D is a roleplaying game set in the fantasy genre; it has rules for fighting. There's much more to the game than that.


Combat in DnD is a "game within a game" and that game at high levels is like playing chess with one side having four queens.

Sure, all your scenarios of winning are fun, but none of those are necessary if you have a wizard in the party.Bad analogy. You're in the same party. It's like playing chess where the fighter the knight, and the wizard is the queen.

If you're talking about your party fighting a wizard opponent, then balance isn't really important there either...

rollfrenzy
2007-08-21, 09:57 AM
I don't necessarily believe DnD is about combat, to be honest, The most fun we have, no dice are thrown, but in the game as it was written, combat is a major factor.

OK maybe chess is a bad analogy, try this...

Combat is like a soccer (football for all you crazy English) where one player on the side is wearing lead boots and has his feet tied together, and the other is Rhonaldhino. and you are playing against fourth graders. the only play you need is give him (the wiz) the ball and he wins.

My argument is mostly on behalf of beginner players, once you have played a while, Balance becomes far less important.

Attilargh
2007-08-21, 10:01 AM
It's like playing chess where the fighter is the knight
Weird, somewhat out of place and ultimately expendable?

Falrin
2007-08-21, 10:10 AM
Question: When your playing a fighter, what's fun about: Time stops, the enemy wizard kills you?

It's not a only question about how powerfull a fighter is compared to the party wizard, it's how he compares to the enemy wizard/caster. At high LvL this means that a fighter stops contibuting to combat, a big part of D&D.

Also it's not a question about books, mythology, sommon sense or any other form of entertainment but a Game. In storie the Casters can be all-powerfull & underdogs defeat the enemy against all odds. People like to read those stories.

Common sense dictates that a Huge Earth Elemental could jump on your fighter, common sense dictates that a +20 BaB, +10 dex, +5 weapon, +5 feats & 1/day True strike archer should be able to shoot an arrow in your eye and you die. D&D (and catgirls) don't like common sense. There are plenty other games where balance isn't a issue, were you can shoot that arrow in somebodies eye and he dies, but not in D&D.


The fighters 'freedom of movement' is not a Spell-Like Ability, it's a Extraordinary one. but didn't I just copy that spell? You can say the spell copied the fighter, but that's not the point. The point is a 20th LvL fighter should be capable of escaping an impossible grapple, ripping his way through a web spell or busting out of a solid fog. It's what you expect of a heroic character.


It's simple:
D&D is a Combat Orientated Role-Playing-Game
People want to have fun
Being unable to even reach the enemy is not fun.


Bears with Lasers made a fighter fix a while ago. Next to 'mimmicing' spells he added a bunchload of other abbilities.

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=30692 (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=30692)

Indon
2007-08-21, 10:12 AM
Weird, somewhat out of place and ultimately expendable?

Of unique tactical value and capable of controlling the field, is how I play mine.

I'd rather lose a bishop than a knight... of course, bishops in chess can't cast healing spells or resurrect your pawns.


Edit: You don't need class imbalance, Falrin, to have un-funness like that. How fun is it for the Frenzied Berserker to pounce into combat after winning initiative and one-round the BBEG? Yet, Frenzied Berserkers aren't considered overpowered... why? Is it assumed that DM's should always put their BBEG's in an unchargable position, in order to avoid the insta-kill?

Artemician
2007-08-21, 10:20 AM
Edit: You don't need class imbalance, Falrin, to have un-funness like that. How fun is it for the Frenzied Berserker to pounce into combat after winning initiative and one-round the BBEG? Yet, Frenzied Berserkers aren't considered overpowered... why? Is it assumed that DM's should always put their BBEG's in an unchargable position, in order to avoid the insta-kill?

Not. At. All. Which is this situation is to be avoided. The Frenzied Berserker is an example of a bad class design. Simply put, it's not fun to play, whether as one, against one, or with one in your party. I couldn't give a donkey's noodles about how powerful it is, if it's not fun to play, it's bad.

Indon
2007-08-21, 10:23 AM
Not. At. All. Which is this situation is to be avoided. The Frenzied Berserker is an example of a bad class design. Simply put, it's not fun to play, whether as one, against one, or with one in your party. I couldn't give a donkey's noodles about how powerful it is, if it's not fun to play, it's bad.

I'm inclined to agree.

I would say, rather than class 'balance' (in, say, 4'th edition), instead that no classes should be able to end combat quickly (well, in their favor anyway). Combat should, in my view, last longer. Short combats are less interesting and less tactical, because they just involve running through your list of tricks, picking the best one, and if you picked right you win.

Ulzgoroth
2007-08-21, 10:23 AM
Bears with Lasers made a fighter fix a while ago. Next to 'mimmicing' spells he added a bunchload of other abbilities.

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=30692 (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=30692)
Um, I just re-read that, and I see exactly one spell replicated (which is, it must be admitted, Freedom of Movement. Not times/day though). There are a few other abilities counted as (su), like using weapons with certain properties to attack magic directly.

There are a bunch of other abilities because fighters need a bunch of help if they want to approach parity. And because having choices is nice.

Telonius
2007-08-21, 10:27 AM
I don't think class balance is just about damage dealt. Classes ought to be roughly balanced in usefulness, not necessarily in "power." A Barbarian bringing an axe down on somebody's head ought to do more damage than a Bard with a whip. A wizard ought to be able to alter the fabric of reality better than a Rogue. But no one class should outshine the others in terms of how useful they can be.

If the Cleric can be a better fighter than the Barbarian (plus cast spells and turn undead), this is an unbalance in usefulness. If a Wizard can render an equal-level Rogue all-but-unnecessary, this is a problem. If a class's niche is so situational that it nearly never gets a chance to shine, it's underpowered in terms of usefulness. If a class is so versatile that it can function very well in every situation, the class is overpowered.

EDIT: As a corollary to all of that, every class ought to have a weak point, every tactic ought to be counter-able. There should be no "Win button" for any class.

Falrin
2007-08-21, 10:27 AM
Now your taking the 'ultimate crazy charger' PrC.

So if we put this against a 'ultimate defence' PrC (the IoTSV) he doesn't have a chence because he will never reach the BBeG.

Tormsskull
2007-08-21, 10:30 AM
Question: When your playing a fighter, what's fun about: Time stops, the enemy wizard kills you?


Its not at all, that's why IMO Time Stop shouldn't even be a spell. But rather than change the entire world (Well, if Wizards can stop time then fighters should be able to resist it) I just scratch that spell (and several others, along with modifying several spells).



It's not a only question about how powerfull a fighter is compared to the party wizard, it's how he compares to the enemy wizard/caster. At high LvL this means that a fighter stops contibuting to combat, a big part of D&D.


In 3.5. That's why many of us are hoping those things change in 4e.



The fighters 'freedom of movement' is not a Spell-Like Ability, it's a Extraordinary one. but didn't I just copy that spell? You can say the spell copied the fighter, but that's not the point. The point is a 20th LvL fighter should be capable of escaping an impossible grapple, ripping his way through a web spell or busting out of a solid fog. It's what you expect of a heroic character.


Once again, that's the problem of a few specific spells. In 3.5 Fighters can break out of a web spell. If a spell has a saving throw, that's the game's way of determining if the Fighter did in fact break out of it. The spells that have no saves are the ones that are problems (and are pretty much all modified when I DM).



It's simple:
D&D is a Combat Orientated Role-Playing-Game
People want to have fun
Being unable to even reach the enemy is not fun.


If a character is unable to reach an enemy because the enemy is smart and used the terrain to his advantage or a prepared trap or whatever, I think that is fun. But if it is the result of a spell that lasts so long that all powerful wizards are assumed to always be under its affects, then yeah, that's dumb.

But the question is do you change the 'reality' of the game by making non-magic people magical, or do you weaken the magic? I'd choose weaken the magic.

TheNifty
2007-08-21, 10:30 AM
While it may not be not fun to play blue when someone is playing red, it is indeed fun to play a fighter when someone is playing a wizard.

I have to disagree with this. If a competently played wizard is in the party above level 8 or so, playing the fighter isn't as much fun as lower levels because there isn't much he can do that will effect how the game turns out. At level twenty, the chances of a fighter having any impact at all on a combat situation is practically zero. Other character classes still have utility uses (The bard can talk to people, the rogue can use his skills/steal stuff/sneak around etc) but the fighter has no use except hitting people. Take that away and he's useless, and whoever is playing him knows it.

Now, maybe in a pure storytelling focused roleplaying game with no combat, that isn't a big deal, but in that case, why bother having classes at all?


But the question is do you change the 'reality' of the game by making non-magic people magical, or do you weaken the magic? I'd choose weaken the magic.

Oh, God yes. Stopping buff spells from lasting so long and adding in multiple round casting times for spells above level four or so would fix a lot of the problems people have with the game. Maybe give very high level fighters a feat for breaking through magical barriers and the like. The game wouldn't be completely balanced, but at least fighters wouldn't feel like a eunuch at a whorehouse.

Indon
2007-08-21, 10:32 AM
If a class's niche is so situational that it nearly never gets a chance to shine, it's underpowered in terms of usefulness. If a class is so versatile that it can function very well in every situation, the class is overpowered.

This is a very, very difficult to apply standard, simply because, well, what is the standard D&D situation? How often can you be expected to come across, say, Undead, or Constructs, versus Humanoids or Goblinoids? How often do you have to stealth as opposed to charge through killing everything? How often do you have to fast-talk nobility or merchant guilds versus intimidating kobolds?

Don't get me wrong, this standard is good for pointing out some extremes that should probably be fixed, such as Druid Wild Shape. To be honest, if you're going to base 'class balance' around this standard, I'd be all for it, because it still allows for diversity in, well, class power and versatility, because you only barely have a standard to apply classes to.

But I'd hesitate to call the result 'class balance'.

Bosh
2007-08-21, 10:59 AM
Underdog protagonist uses his wits, determination and sheer luck to emerge triumphant against the powerful antagonist = fun.

Underdog protagonist prepares to use his wits, determination and sheer luck to emerge triumphant against the powerful antagonist, but then the other protagonist makes time stop and disintegrete the antagonist's head before the underdog protagonist can even draw his sword = not fun

Playing a member of the Fantastic Four, each of whom have something to contribute to the group = fun

Playing Jimmy Olsen while your friend players Superman = not fun

Why something as basic as this even needs to be debated is beyond me.

nagora
2007-08-21, 11:10 AM
Like I said, classes should be useful, but that has nothing to do with them being balanced. Class balance is a bad thing and should not be the focus of the game design.

I can't imagine any other definition of "balanced" being of use in the context of a group-play game. Class balance is all about not having one player dominate all the others (ie, make the others' parts in the game unimportant) when they have all had the same experience points.

What other measure of balance matters than how it affects players with different classes' enjoyment? In that context, class balance is very important, although it is an impossible goal to perfect it.

TheNifty
2007-08-21, 11:11 AM
Playing Jimmy Olsen while your friend players Superman = not fun

That's probably the best summarization of the problem I've read so far. Except, as we all know, the wizard is Batman (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=18500), not Superman.:smalltongue:

Falrin
2007-08-21, 11:26 AM
Playing a member of the Fantastic Four, each of whom have something to contribute to the group = fun

Playing Jimmy Olsen while your friend players Superman = not fun

Why something as basic as this even needs to be debated is beyond me.

Quoted for thruth.

Telonius
2007-08-21, 11:30 AM
This is a very, very difficult to apply standard, simply because, well, what is the standard D&D situation? How often can you be expected to come across, say, Undead, or Constructs, versus Humanoids or Goblinoids? How often do you have to stealth as opposed to charge through killing everything? How often do you have to fast-talk nobility or merchant guilds versus intimidating kobolds?

Don't get me wrong, this standard is good for pointing out some extremes that should probably be fixed, such as Druid Wild Shape. To be honest, if you're going to base 'class balance' around this standard, I'd be all for it, because it still allows for diversity in, well, class power and versatility, because you only barely have a standard to apply classes to.

But I'd hesitate to call the result 'class balance'.

Remove the extremes (Certain wizard spell combinations, divine power cheese, wildshape issues, give the monk a better niche) and what's left is usefulness-balanced enough that people don't complain too much about it. The Rogue's usefulness increases drastically if the Wizard can't duplicate his trapfinding. (He's already somewhat versatile as a wand-user, sniper, and sneak attacker). The Fighter-types start looking a lot more useful if CoDzilla can't do their job for them. Make the Monk really, truly, undeniably more useful than the other classes in something, and the class becomes roughly balanced.

Roderick_BR
2007-08-21, 11:34 AM
I think one thing people is failing to see here:
A 20th level wizard is supposed to grab reality by the hair, and twist it as he sees fit.
A 20th level fighter, should be able, supposedly, to do similar levels of stunts.
If not... what the heck happened to all those millions of XP he got? If a player will waste all his time playing a fighter, he should get something. Or a monk, or a paladin, whatever.

Imagine Kratos, from God of War. He should be a high level fighter. You could compare him to a warblade or swordsage with the current D&D rules, or maybe an epic fighter. But he should be a high level pre-epic fighter.

Simply put: If you reached level 20, you SHOULD be able to be powerful, no matter the class. If you don't, then the game is not prepared to deal with it.

Yes, a wizard SHOULD be more powerful than a fighter of same level. More powerful, but NOT able to kill 10 24th level fighters in 1-2 rounds, as it's possible now. It is broken. It disrupts gameplay. And that is what it's wrong.

Someone once suggested to just stop using fighters. It's a lot easier to just stop using wizards. No headaches for the DM... no complaints from others players... no broken builds... everyone can actually play, instead of sitting back and watching the caster do everything...

Good example of broken rules:
Save or Die spells: In most games, spells that can destroy an enemy are usually hard to use, or costly, or take some time... in D&D, it's so easy, no wizard will NOT use it.
Save or Suck spells: Those are hard to deal with. Yes, an effect that can nerf an enemy, specially if the wizard can prepare the right kind against his enemy, is fine. But the majority of them are Win-Buttons, instead of just weakening the enemy.
High level spells: Most high level spells are standard or full round actions. Change the fabric of reality should take more time. Particularly powerful spells should take several rounds.
Force Cage and Time Stop: Two of the most broken spells: Force spells should always be higher level to cast. An overly complex spell like force cage should be pushed into epic casting. Time Stop shouldn't allow a wizard to affect others at all!
Weaknesses: Okay, the wizard is supposed to be physically the weakest character. However, there are dozens of ways to make a wizard untouchable. Then, I use this line from a local company that produces games: "If the character doesn't suffers his weaknesses, then he shouldn't gain the powers that he gains because of them." So, wizards are getting all the powers, and getting none of the weakness. "No sane DM should allow this."

I still fail to see how balancing classes, or at least putting them more playable, is a bad thing.

Falrin
2007-08-21, 12:09 PM
Technicly the best example for the problems with Class Balance is CoDzilla.

Why would you play a fighter when a boosted Cleric can do the same with not only a load of extra spells to back him up but also a 'die stupid undead, die' button? When the Druid can change in a Boosted Fighter-Squishing Direbear and not only a load of spell to back him up but also an extra (easely boosted) companion to play with.

Tormsskull
2007-08-21, 12:24 PM
I think one thing people is failing to see here:
A 20th level wizard is supposed to grab reality by the hair, and twist it as he sees fit.
A 20th level fighter, should be able, supposedly, to do similar levels of stunts.


I don't think this is necessarily true. A 20th level fighter should be very powerful, at fighting, incredible skill with a weapon(s), armor, and tactics. Not changing reality. That's magic, that's the magic people's thing.

The trick is giving the fighter enough non-magical, skill-based abilities that make him fun, and somewhat balanced against the magic people. The high level fighter should be able to kill the high level magic guy, if he gets close to him. The magic guy should have abilities that let him get away from the fighter, but those abilities should require time to cast.

Here's how I imagine it. Let's say we assign a "Power" score to the classes. The Power score represents how powerful that class is. The number is between 1 and 100. I think a high level Fighter should be like an 80. A high level mage should be a 50. But a high level mage with buffs should be a 95.

Now, if buffs last all day then the fact that the mage's power is only 50 never happens, and thus defeats the purpose of this. Like I said in several other posts: Limit buffs, limit save-or-lose/die spells. Make the wizard have to actually be smart to win.

Should a wizard be able to cast a spell that makes him resist the fighter's attacks? Sure. But that spell shouldn't be able to be cast in response to the fighter attacking. If the wizard knows that their is a fighter on the other side of a door, and he spends time buffing up, he should be able to kill that fighter, assuming equal power levels.

The fighter on the other hand, is a static 80. If he catches the mage by surprise, that mage should go down fast.

SolkaTruesilver
2007-08-21, 12:44 PM
I don't know how many time I've argued this point:

I don't think there is such a big wrong deal about wizards being phantasmagoricly powerful, as opposed to the fighter. I have a problem with having the magic work better than today's car.

The problem with the magic system, actually, is that the wizard always suceed on his casting, and it does exactly what he wants. (except if you are in a Wild Magic area). Make the whole magic system more.. chaotic and dangerous, and you'll see a lot less smartass wizards who can beat everything. They will be much more interested in trusting the fighter's less powerful, but totally reliable, sword skill.

Like in Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay. Wizards are incredibly powerful, they can cast spell AT WILL. Those spells are pretty powerful, and a 2nd-level wizard (which is about the equivalent of a 8-level d&d wizard) knows ALL the spell he will be able to cast in his career. However, some spells are just incredibly difficult to cast, so he'll stick with lower-point spell.

Where is the danger? Well, in order to cast, a mage can roll up to his magician level in d10 (Archmages are lvl 4), and try to equal or beat the # of the spell. (a fireball could be a spell of power 7, which means any wizard knowing it can cast as many fireball he wants, as long as he rolls 7+ on his casting roll).

Here is the danger:
- If he rolls ONLY 1s, he has to succeed a willpower save or become a little mad
- If he rolls double, something bad happens (there is quite a list).
- If he rolls triple, something really bad happens
- If he rolls quadruple, good bye wizard

Even a 4th Level Wizard would use magic only when necessary and not abuse it.

I can't say the same with 16th-level wizards in D&D

There is your class balance: Danger in casting. Risk. Un-predectability.

nagora
2007-08-21, 12:55 PM
The problem with the magic system, actually, is that the wizard always suceed on his casting, and it does exactly what he wants.

No it doesn't - that's a large part of what saving throws represent.

Krellen
2007-08-21, 01:07 PM
No it doesn't - that's a large part of what saving throws represent.
Except a cursory glance at save bonuses vs. DCs reveals that saving throws are a poor mechanic; you're either nearly guaranteed to save, or nearly guaranteed to fail - especially at higher levels, where the need for more "risk" in magic is by far a greater requirement for balance.

Something interesting about this thread: there's a large debate between people that essentially agree. One side is calling for a reduction in magical power; the other for an increase in fighter power (perhaps with the addition of magic-like abilities). But in essence, both sides are arguing in favour of class balance; the only difference is in approach.

Indon
2007-08-21, 01:16 PM
Imagine Kratos, from God of War. He should be a high level fighter. You could compare him to a warblade or swordsage with the current D&D rules, or maybe an epic fighter. But he should be a high level pre-epic fighter.

Kratos starts out as a high-level fighter with a Major Artifact. By the end he is an epic fighter with a major artifact and...

Divine Ranks.


Even at the beginning, though, when Kratos fights things, he doesn't just run up and hit it. He has to make called shots, he has to use the environment, and he has to avoid nearly every attack because he dies in like 4 of them (1 at sufficiently high difficulty)

Kratos couldn't stand toe-to-toe against, well, anything he fought, in terms of bosses. He fought an uphill battle the entire way, and that's what made it a good video game.

Droodle
2007-08-21, 01:18 PM
No it doesn't - that's a large part of what saving throws represent.Since saves are tied into the level of the spell being cast and the wizards spell casting stat, a high level wizard, without even bothering to target his enemies' weak saves, will succeed with his save or suck spells more often than not. If the wizard actually bothers to think about where his enemies are weak, his spells will pretty much always work. This is a problem.

North
2007-08-21, 01:21 PM
Class Balance is desperately needed. Its no fun thats playing the guy thats the ugly redheaded step child of the group. And for those who say if the classes are balanced then it will just be whoevers the most optimized. Whatabout when the classes arent balance and the guys are still optimized? Its even worse.

Droodle
2007-08-21, 01:23 PM
Even at the beginning, though, when Kratos fights things, he doesn't just run up and hit it. He has to make called shots, he has to use the environment, and he has to avoid nearly every attack because he dies in like 4 of them (1 at sufficiently high difficulty)

Kratos couldn't stand toe-to-toe against, well, anything he fought, in terms of bosses. He fought an uphill battle the entire way, and that's what made it a good video game.Apples and oranges. God of War is a fast-twitch reflexes video game. D&D is played on paper. Just because you, the player, had to do Kratos' dodging for him doesn't mean that Kratos was incapable of dodging. In a P&P game, you replace twitch reflexes with an Armor class. If Kratos were a D&D character, his AC would have been obnoxiously high.

Indon
2007-08-21, 01:28 PM
Apples and oranges. God of War is a fast-twitch reflexes video game. D&D is played on paper. Just because you, the player, had to do Kratos' dodging for him doesn't mean that Kratos was incapable of dodging.

In D&D terms, then, Kratos had an AC which required most things to roll a 20 to hit him. This is possible, albeit infeasible, in 3'rd edition D&D. No Maneuvers (Those familiar with Exalted may instead read: Charms) required.

I'm familiar with maneuver-based combat, as I mentioned before, having been familiar with Exalted. I'd much rather D&D not turn into the same sort of game... and if it did, Exalted will probably do it better anyway.

Jayabalard
2007-08-21, 01:29 PM
I think one thing people is failing to see here:
A 20th level wizard is supposed to grab reality by the hair, and twist it as he sees fit.
A 20th level fighter, should be able, supposedly, to do similar levels of stunts.
If not... what the heck happened to all those millions of XP he got? If a player will waste all his time playing a fighter, he should get something. Or a monk, or a paladin, whatever.I'm not failing to see, I just disagree.


Underdog protagonist uses his wits, determination and sheer luck to emerge triumphant against the powerful antagonist = fun.

Underdog protagonist prepares to use his wits, determination and sheer luck to emerge triumphant against the powerful antagonist, but then the other protagonist makes time stop and disintegrete the antagonist's head before the underdog protagonist can even draw his sword = not fun

Playing a member of the Fantastic Four, each of whom have something to contribute to the group = fun
This one has nothing to do with Class balance; the fantastic 4 are not balanced in terms of power.


Playing Jimmy Olsen while your friend players Superman = not funI disagree; I don't need to be the uber powerful hero. In any game that I'm going to enjoy playing, I can enjoy playing Jimmy just as much as I'd enjoy playing Superman.


Why something as basic as this even needs to be debated is beyond me.Because it's not that basic, nor is it universal.


I have to disagree with this. If a competently played wizard is in the party above level 8 or so, playing the fighter isn't as much fun as lower levels because there isn't much he can do that will effect how the game turns out. At level twenty, the chances of a fighter having any impact at all on a combat situation is practically zero. Other character classes still have utility uses (The bard can talk to people, the rogue can use his skills/steal stuff/sneak around etc) but the fighter has no use except hitting people. Take that away and he's useless, and whoever is playing him knows it.Being non-useless does not require class balance, nor does it require class balance to be the primary focus of game design.

TheNifty
2007-08-21, 02:08 PM
This one has nothing to do with Class balance; the fantastic 4 are not balanced in terms of power.

But they are all capable of contributing to the group. As it is currently, fighters are not.


I disagree; I don't need to be the uber powerful hero. In any game that I'm going to enjoy playing, I can enjoy playing Jimmy just as much as I'd enjoy playing Superman.

OK, but you have to understand you are in the extreme minority. Most Role Players want their participation to have some vague effect on the outcome of the game.


Being non-useless does not require class balance, nor does it require class balance to be the primary focus of game design.

No-one is saying the classes have to be utterly, perfectly balanced in every way, we are saying that as the rules are now, fighters are not able to contribute at higher levels. Don't you think maybe, thats a problem in need of fixing?

ALOR
2007-08-21, 02:14 PM
No-one is saying the classes have to be utterly, perfectly balanced in every way, we are saying that as the rules are now, fighters are not able to contribute at higher levels. Don't you think maybe, thats a problem in need of fixing?

I have had fighters in 3.x be able to contribute at high levels, and be effective. I guess this is just my personal experience though

Indon
2007-08-21, 02:15 PM
No-one is saying the classes have to be utterly, perfectly balanced in every way, we are saying that as the rules are now, fighters are not able to contribute at higher levels. Don't you think maybe, thats a problem in need of fixing?

Not neccessarily.

In this particular case, since both Fighters and Wizards are presented in the same material, yes, because they're likely to be played together. But a Fighter is only unable to contribute when not playing with other classes of a similar level of power.

Had, say, the Binder been originally introduced along with the Fighter, rather than the Wizard, then who cares about the Wizard? Wizards can travel with other groups, or provide for high-quality BBEG source for our Fighter parties.

Jayabalard
2007-08-21, 02:21 PM
But they are all capable of contributing to the group. As it is currently, fighters are not.Yes... they are. They may not to contribute as much as you want them to, or as much as other classes, but they can indeed contribute. I'm not entirely sure that it needs "fixing" and even if it does, fixing that does not require class balance.


OK, but you have to understand you are in the extreme minority. Most Role Players want their participation to have some vague effect on the outcome of the game.I can have more than a "vague effect on the outcome of the game" as Jimmy, so perhaps I'm not such an extreme minority after all. Sure, he can't go around punching out the villain, but that doesn't mean he can't do anything; a good GM can run in a campaign with those sort of disparate power levels and still make the game fun.

The important qualification that you may have missed: "In any game that I'm going to enjoy playing". That means that not only are there non-combat situations, they're at least as important in the game, if not more so, than the combat ones.


No-one is saying the classes have to be utterly, perfectly balanced in every way, we are saying that as the rules are now, fighters are not able to contribute at higher levels. Don't you think maybe, thats a problem in need of fixing?Actually, more than one person has stated that class balance is the most important thing in the game design, which is the sentiment that I've been disagreeing with (hence my initial statement: "all classes should be useful... but that has nothing to do with class balance."). Making each class useful it doesn't require classes to be even close to balanced in terms of power.

In fantasy, someone with magic should be more powerful than someone without; in sci-fi: someone with high/ultra tech should be more powerful than someone with low tech.

nagora
2007-08-21, 03:20 PM
Actually, more than one person has stated that class balance is the most important thing in the game design, which is the sentiment that I've been disagreeing with (hence my initial statement: "all classes should be useful... but that has nothing to do with class balance."). Making each class useful it doesn't require classes to be even close to balanced in terms of power.


I've said several times that I think a party of PCs who started together and have evenly split experience should generally not diverge in usefulness to the point where players of non-casters feel that their characters are no longer important. Do you agree?

I'm specifically asking you because I'm having a hard time deciding what you mean by class balance and "power".

Rasumichin
2007-08-21, 03:20 PM
Actually, more than one person has stated that class balance is the most important thing in the game design, which is the sentiment that I've been disagreeing with

Which is as little a universal statement as


Class balance is a bad thing and should not be the focus of the game design.


In fact, the latter statement would be highly counterproductive to a gaming experience i usually enjoy, while the former would take little or nothing away from it.

I fully understand that there's people who do not care -and do not have to care- about balance, be it class-wise or in an open character generation system.
However, besides the fact that i do not hold the same opinion and do not believe D&D to be the most apropriate game for it anyway, this opinion can hardly be universalized.


In fantasy, someone with magic should be more powerful than someone without; in sci-fi: someone with high/ultra tech should be more powerful than someone with low tech.

Once again, in your opinion.
What is sound and plausible in fantasy is always dependant on the arbitrarily defined conventions of a given setting.

[Scrubbed]

In other settings, like earlier TDE editions, resurrecting someone would be something only possible by direct divine intervention a cleric could not count on, but merely beg for.

I do not mean to blaspheme here, this example should just illustrate how vastly fantasy settings can differ in terms of mystical power level.


However, in my opinion, someone with magic should be extremely powerful in a typical fantasy setting- after years or even decades or probably centuries of hard training and intense study.

At this point, at an epic level, to speak in D&D terms, said magically gifted person should indeed be powerful enough to twist the very fabric of reality.
Stop time, bend space, do things that are on the level of a demigood and change the face of the campaign world.

That's what epic play is about.

And fighting characters at this level should very well be comparable to mythic champions such as Heracles- that they have not achieved their power through ancestry, but experience, does not matter in D&D where growing beyond common human abilities by gaining XP is a completely sound and normal thing.

Non-caster classes at epic level may not be superman, but not Jimmy Olson either.
At the very least, they should be Lex Luthor- or, better yet, Batman.
In fact, it is rather unfortunate that Batman has become the overpowered wizard's synonym, since Batman is someone able to play in the same league with Superman without having any superpowers, but by using sheer force of will, cunning and superior equipment.


Now, let's take a look at lower levels, at what 4E has, in the brief teasers yet released, referred to as "paragon levels".
It seems unreasonable to me that a wizard should be able to command the awesome, world-changing amount of power required for epic play at this level.

He should, of course, do things people without magic are not able to do.


However, a fighter of similar experience should be a person achieving deeds that go beyond human capacities, too.
Not in the way a wizard does, but in a Conan way.
By absolutely outstanding feats of indomitable will and physical power.

This will give him genuinly different powers than a wizard, but he will contribute his part in combat situations or whereever physical presence is needed.


Going even further down the line, to characters at beginning levels, a wizard should be just a smart guy wielding some minor magical energy.
A fighter likewise should be someone on par with a trained athlete and a rogue should be a cunning, skilled criminal or somesuch.

Still tough guys, since this is a heroic game, but all completely normal- and what's not normal is of similar power and can easily be explained plausibly as being this limited, since our young, aspiring wizard has only yet begun to master the incredibly complex arcane arts.

Falrin
2007-08-21, 03:23 PM
Well you seem to miss one basic fact of D&D: it's Combat Heavy, in most games combat takes up the major part of a gaming session. If you are not usefull in combat, you're not usefull for the larger part of the game.

Ex. In a recent game we encountered some Caster with their Undead Minions. The Fighter charges and has to deal with a Fear-Spell. Of he goes for the next 10 rounds & another 10 to get back. He went out to buy some food. He did not have fun.

Could this have Happened to any Class? Probably, but that fighter HAD to charge in melee and has no ways to avoid a high DC will save effect.

Indon
2007-08-21, 03:43 PM
Could this have Happened to any Class? Probably, but that fighter HAD to charge in melee and has no ways to avoid a high DC will save effect.

Were there any members in the party who might have, like, helped him?

Say, with a way to remove fear?

psychoticbarber
2007-08-21, 03:45 PM
Were there any members in the party who might have, like, helped him?

Say, with a way to remove fear?

You mean, like, a caster?

"I am forever grateful for the Cleric and Wizard, without whom I would be nothing" :smallconfused:.

Doesn't quite fly for me.

Indon
2007-08-21, 03:46 PM
You mean, like, a caster?

"I am forever grateful for the Cleric and Wizard, without whom I would be nothing" :smallconfused:.

Doesn't quite fly for me.

D&D is far more group-oriented than it is combat-oriented.

Falrin
2007-08-21, 03:55 PM
I'm the local Cleric in that game.

50 % of my list is filled with Remove disease, poison, pretection from this or that, ...

If I'd focus on, you know, fighting the enemy I'm would be a lot more usefull.

Next:
When that fighter gets hit, he runs at full speed (60 Ft) Remove Fear is Close range (55 Ft fro me) and I couldn't even reach him.

He already had 2x Magic Vestment, Magic Circle Vs Evil, Airwalk & greater Magic Weapon on him. Even if I managed to cast remove fear before he got hit that +4 wouldn't have made it.

tainsouvra
2007-08-21, 03:56 PM
D&D is far more group-oriented than it is combat-oriented. However, step back and consider the consequences of that example.

A fighter needed a caster in order to remain effective.
A caster did not need a fighter in order to remain effective.

That's a theme at high levels, and it's not a good thing.

Jayabalard
2007-08-21, 04:33 PM
Which is as little a universal statement as I didn't claim that either was universal.
TheNifty said - No-one is saying the classes have to be utterly, perfectly balanced in every way,<snip>

Which is a false statement; while not everyone is claiming that, there are indeed people who have been saying that is what they want; I contradicted that with Actually, more than one person has stated<snip>

which is simply an assertion that there are people (no claim on majority, or number) that feel that way about class balance. Nowhere did I make any claim of universality for either side, only that "noone" is not correct.


Once again, in your opinion.Isn't the whole point of this thread a discussion of opinions? So isn't that kind of a given, that I'm going to be discussing my opinion? I don't claim that my opinion is the only way, or a "fact of D&D", or even that it's how the majority of gamers feel at any point.


A fighter needed a caster in order to remain effective.
A caster did not need a fighter in order to remain effective.

That's a theme at high levels, and it's not a good thing.
Why not?


Well you seem to miss one basic fact of D&D: it's Combat Heavy, in most games combat takes up the major part of a gaming session. If you are not usefull in combat, you're not usefull for the larger part of the game. it's not a "basic fact of D&D"... it's the way that you play the game.

Just to be clear, I'm not making any judgments about how you choose to play the game, or saying that I think it's an invalid way to play the game; I'm just disagreeing with the claim of "basic fact".

tainsouvra
2007-08-21, 06:50 PM
Why not? ...because it's a sign that some classes are needed and others are extraneous. It's generally not as much fun to be the extraneous guy.

Bosh
2007-08-21, 07:36 PM
This one has nothing to do with Class balance; the fantastic 4 are not balanced in terms of power.
So what if the Thing can beat the crap out of the squishier members, they're all balanced (at least roughly) in their ability to contribute to the group. Class balance isn't about being able to hold your own in one on one combat, its about being an important and valued member of a group. The Fantastic Four are roughly balanced by that rubric and Superman and Jimmy Olsen are not. At high level play a lot of classes start resembling Jimmy Olsen, or at the very best Robin...


I disagree; I don't need to be the uber powerful hero. In any game that I'm going to enjoy playing, I can enjoy playing Jimmy just as much as I'd enjoy playing Superman.
You're a very small minority, making a mass market RPG based on what a small minority wants is silly. Even most hardcore RPers want to have a character who can impact the storyline as much as any other characters and being a Jimmy Olsen doesn't provide that.


That means that not only are there non-combat situations, they're at least as important in the game, if not more so, than the combat ones.
Yes but fighters (and Jimmy Olsen) are even more useless vis a vi Superman in noncombat situations than in combat situations.


Making each class useful it doesn't require classes to be even close to balanced in terms of power.
Depends on what you mean by being useful. If each class is roughly as useful as the other that's class balance right there even if one can whipe the floor with the other in a one on one fight. However if you consider Jimmy Olsen to be useful in a Superman campaign on the other hand...


In fantasy, someone with magic should be more powerful than someone without; in sci-fi: someone with high/ultra tech should be more powerful than someone with low tech.
Well the difference is that if you have low tech its a lot easier to get your hands on tech than it is for someone without magic to get magic. In any case I don't see why magic has to be of the D&D-style "making reality sit down and shut up" variety. I played a Viking campaign recently in which I only allowed magic that people in those times believed in. The only magic the party's main caster ever used were alchemy, hypnosis and curses (there was also a multiclass barbarian/sorcerer who had a variety of berzerker self-buffs that I homebrewed and branched out a little into some basic runes). Still very useful to the party, but much more "giving reality a small nudge" than "making reality sit down and shut up." Made for a very nice change of pace.

Thoughtbot360
2007-08-22, 03:28 AM
So what if the Thing can beat the crap out of the squishier members, they're all balanced (at least roughly) in their ability to contribute to the group. Class balance isn't about being able to hold your own in one on one combat, its about being an important and valued member of a group. The Fantastic Four are roughly balanced by that rubric and Superman and Jimmy Olsen are not. At high level play a lot of classes start resembling Jimmy Olsen, or at the very best Robin...


You're a very small minority, making a mass market RPG based on what a small minority wants is silly. Even most hardcore RPers want to have a character who can impact the storyline as much as any other characters and being a Jimmy Olsen doesn't provide that.


Yes but fighters (and Jimmy Olsen) are even more useless vis a vi Superman in noncombat situations than in combat situations.


Depends on what you mean by being useful. If each class is roughly as useful as the other that's class balance right there even if one can whipe the floor with the other in a one on one fight. However if you consider Jimmy Olsen to be useful in a Superman campaign on the other hand...


Well the difference is that if you have low tech its a lot easier to get your hands on tech than it is for someone without magic to get magic. In any case I don't see why magic has to be of the D&D-style "making reality sit down and shut up" variety. I played a Viking campaign recently in which I only allowed magic that people in those times believed in. The only magic the party's main caster ever used were alchemy, hypnosis and curses (there was also a multiclass barbarian/sorcerer who had a variety of berzerker self-buffs that I homebrewed and branched out a little into some basic runes). Still very useful to the party, but much more "giving reality a small nudge" than "making reality sit down and shut up." Made for a very nice change of pace.

You know, this reminds me of the Enforced Class Challenge for FFXII (http://www.gamefaqs.com/console/ps2/file/459841/45802). It was made to offer more challenge and more careful thinking to a game where you can easily create bastardized Fighter/Mages that are uber effective and can all Summon super beings and do "Mist Quickenings" for insane amounts of damage, in short super characters can learn to do anything (its actually not all that easy, but it gets a little tedious in the end-game and many abilities get overlooked that now get a chance in this challenge). Instead of every character having access to everything, the Enforced Class Challenge limits you to take a certain number of equipment, magic, and power-up licenses you can take on the License Board, as dictated by the class you give each of the six characters that join your party in Final Fantasy 12. The reason this is relevant to our class-balance discussion is because the "classes" are designed to rely on each other for their common survival, while at the same time allowing a different play style depending on your choices. An attractive model for designing class balance.

Falrin
2007-08-22, 06:52 AM
it's not a "basic fact of D&D"... it's the way that you play the game.

Just to be clear, I'm not making any judgments about how you choose to play the game, or saying that I think it's an invalid way to play the game; I'm just disagreeing with the claim of "basic fact".


Actually it is. It was ment for the 4 encounters a day, published adventures are mostly "typical dungeons" and all classess are, in one way or another, focused on battle.

If I knew more RPGs i could easely point you out 2 - 3 systems that support a more role-playing-aproach better. I've played a few sessions of Werewolf, this is what I call a free, less-power depended game. Nobody is inneficient, nobody claims the game. A lot more mystery solving, planning & talking. When you get to smashing stuff the differences in power are not overwhelming (and not as important).

So there is nothing wrong with the basic fact that D&D was ment to be combat heavy. All the mechanics support this and most limit you in your actions in a 'balancing' way (No instant Kill poisons, No dropping Earth Elementals on people, No shooting in the eye, ...)

This discussion should be about what the game should represent.The bulk of the gamers expect it to have a lot of combat and want to contribute in this combat.

You let Fluff influence the Crunch more then it can handle.
- Magic should be allpowerfull, so Wizards should be mechanicly better.

What if I state: In my gameworld (Let's say Tolkienesk) my Elves should be Allpowerfull. So +8 on all stats, a 50hp bonus, up to 4th LvL spells at will, ...
People will say, shouldn't this thing have a huge LA? Oh no, Elves are supposed to be stronger ...

Actually LA is a good way to look at this. Why do Hill Giants have a LA? Aren't they supposed to be stronger?

factotum
2007-08-22, 07:28 AM
Tolkien is actually a superb example of a fantasy setting which is remarkably light on magic. The only guys who are regularly seen using it are people like Gandalf and Saruman, who aren't actually human anyway (they're immortal demi-gods from the Blessed Lands)--and Gandalf is getting the benefit of a Ring of Power, too!

I don't think magic should be as rare as it is in Tolkien, but something is out of whack in D&D right now when wizards are as powerful as they are and also as common as they are. Somebody that absurdly powerful shouldn't be that easy to get, so either the power needs toning down or the level progression needs tweaking. (First Edition, where different classes had different XP progression rates, is a good example--wizards required more XP than pretty much anyone else to gain levels).

Jayabalard
2007-08-22, 07:30 AM
...because it's a sign that some classes are needed and others are extraneous. It's generally not as much fun to be the extraneous guy.Not true. It's a sign that "some classes are more useful than others" ... which doesn't make the less useful classes not useful. Unless you have a very poor DM, no classes is "needed"


Actually it is. It was ment for the 4 encounters a day, published adventures are mostly "typical dungeons" and all classess are, in one way or another, focused on battle.Nope. It's not a "basic fact of D&D. " That's the way that you play it.

having classes is a basic fact of D&D; particular play styles... not so much.


So what if the Thing can beat the crap out of the squishier members, they're all balanced (at least roughly) in their ability to contribute to the group. Nope, they're not. They only have opportunities to contribue because of the writing. Someone could just as easily claim that D&D classes are balanced as long s you write the adventures so that each member can shine...

That's simply not true; that doesn't make the fatanstic 4 (or D&D classes) balanced.


Class balance isn't about being able to hold your own in one on one combat, its about being an important and valued member of a group. Nope; class balance means to be roughly the same level of abilities, which isn't necessary to being "an important, and valued member of a group"


You're a very small minority, I have never claimed otherwise; being in a minority does not change my opinion on whether class balance is a good or bad thing.


making a mass market RPG based on what a small minority wants is silly. Even most hardcore RPers want to have a character who can impact the storyline as much as any other characters and being a Jimmy Olsen doesn't provide that.False; most hardcore RPers recognize that a character's power level has almost nothing to do with how they impact a story.


Yes but fighters (and Jimmy Olsen) are even more useless vis a vi Superman in noncombat situations than in combat situations.False. They are "even more useless" only in some noncombat situations, not all.


Depends on what you mean by being useful. If each class is roughly as useful as the other that's class balance right there even if one can whipe the floor with the other in a one on one fight. However if you consider Jimmy Olsen to be useful in a Superman campaign on the other hand...Classes don't have to be "roughly as useful as [each] other" (balanced) to be useful.

Whether Jimmy Olsen is "as useful" as superman depends on a lot on the style of game and the adventure writing; it's the same reason that the fantastic 4 all appear to be useful: the writing allows for it.


Well the difference is that if you have low tech its a lot easier to get your hands on tech than it is for someone without magic to get magic. In any case I don't see why magic has to be of the D&D-style "making reality sit down and shut up" variety. I played a Viking campaign recently in which I only allowed magic that people in those times believed in. The only magic the party's main caster ever used were alchemy, hypnosis and curses (there was also a multiclass barbarian/sorcerer who had a variety of berzerker self-buffs that I homebrewed and branched out a little into some basic runes). Still very useful to the party, but much more "giving reality a small nudge" than "making reality sit down and shut up." Made for a very nice change of pace.D&D is not designed for low magic; I'd say that you are in the a fairly small minority yourself if play D&D as low magic. If you want low magic, there are a bunch of other games (including some D20 ones) that do low fantasy or historical fantasy better.

Tormsskull
2007-08-22, 07:36 AM
*snip*


You really should attach the name of the poster to your quote, you do so like this:



quoted text





You let Fluff influence the Crunch more then it can handle.


Shouldn't that be up to each gaming group/DM to decide?

Indon
2007-08-22, 08:11 AM
However, step back and consider the consequences of that example.

A fighter needed a caster in order to remain effective.
A caster did not need a fighter in order to remain effective.

That's a theme at high levels, and it's not a good thing.

Counterexample: 2'nd edition Clerics.

They _did_ need other party members to be effective, just as the front-line fighters needed healing.

Nobody liked playing clerics. They weren't fun. (Edit: And not because they were underpowered, either, or couldn't contribute.)

That was not a good thing. The present situation is almost certainly superior.

Artemician
2007-08-22, 08:19 AM
Counterexample: 2'nd edition Clerics.

They _did_ need other party members to be effective, just as the front-line fighters needed healing.

Nobody liked playing clerics. They weren't fun. (Edit: And not because they were underpowered, either, or couldn't contribute.)

That was not a good thing. The present situation is almost certainly superior.

It is true that the current system is better than 2nd Edition, but the point still stands. Some classes have to wholly depend on other classes to be effective, and that's a bad thing because it's not fun, regardless of any power level.

You took the words out of my mouth. :smalltongue:

Indon
2007-08-22, 08:29 AM
It is true that the current system is better than 2nd Edition, but the point still stands. Some classes have to wholly depend on other classes to be effective, and that's a bad thing because it's not fun, regardless of any power level.

You took the words out of my mouth. :smalltongue:

You bring up an intriguing point which I am not entirely sure is in the scope of this thread; namely, the ideal role and function for support in an RPG like D&D.

My point was simply that fun does not stem from equality, at least not by the criteria used in that example.

Falrin
2007-08-22, 08:42 AM
You really should attach the name of the poster to your quote, you do so like this


Thx :)




False; most hardcore RPers recognize that a character's power level has almost nothing to do with how they impact a story.

So Mister Fighter Contributes a lot to the story. He has major things going on in all places of the country, discovers some nasty subplots and finds out who the spy is.

This is what we call a good impact on a Story.

One of the subplots leads mister Fighter to the Evil Adviser Wizard.
Here ends the impact of our fighter as time stops and Balors swarm the place trough some gate.

But oh wait, you say the DM should fit the story to the PC's? Well basicly you're right; A Fireballing wizard should see a bunch of Low-LvL mooks once in a while, a bard should see his share of the intrigue and a sneaky ranger should ambush some monsters in the wild. This is what we call good DMing, every player enjoys himself and can show off once in a while.

The problem here is that unbalanced classess limit the DM. I want that Adviser to be a High lvL wizard, he should have some pacts with a demon lord, enchant the king and scry on the party. But when Mister Fighter finds him, he'll get killed.

Maybe I shouldn't use high LvL caster? Maybe I Should down him some LvLs? When every fight goes like this:
Caster blocks Fighter
Caster frees Fighter
Caster Blocks Fighter
...

Not really fun.

And blocking a fighter is oh, so easy.
1 dominate person can make the Huge-Impact-on-the-Story-Guy a puppet in the hands of the evil guy.
1 contigency: Teleport makes him uncatchable. And 4 rounds later he teleports back in with his buffs on and his summon firends.

There are simply to many spells that a casters have to overpower not only any combat encounter, but also any non-combat encounter.

Charm, Scrying, disguise self, alter self, knock, fly, teleport, overland flight, invisibility.



In the end:
Yes, you can say class balance is not important for the story or impact on it. But when that fighter tries to find out whet this artifact is, the bard Gets a huge Gather Information, The rogue infiltrates the library, The Wizard casts Legend Lore or gets a good Knowledge (Arcana) check.

You can run a game with mechanicly unbalanced classes, but you'll have problems with high LvL combat, the DM has a hell of a job to keep the Melee Characters in the spotlight, the lack of options certain classes have or there weaknesses in general can get in the way of the story (Smooth talking mobile fighters are not the most common type).

Telonius
2007-08-22, 08:46 AM
Regarding "how many encounters per day..."

I'm at work at the moment so I don't have my DMG on me, but I seem to remember something around page 50 or so about encounters per day. Does anyone have access to it?

Bosh
2007-08-22, 09:58 AM
Nope, they're not. They only have opportunities to contribue because of the writing. Someone could just as easily claim that D&D classes are balanced as long s you write the adventures so that each member can shine...
Unless you throw in anti-magic fields every single adventure that's pretty much impossible. If each class had their own role in which they could shine then you could just balance them "because of the writing." But some classes shine heavily in multiple roles and some are outclassed in their own area of strength. That is where the unbalance comes in, not from raw combat strength. Look if casters and fighters could be balanced by good DMing then it wouldn't be a problem. But right now its very hard to do it unless the caster uses stupid tactics (which is very common thankfully) or the DM is constantly twisting the entire focus of the adventure to desperately try to shove the spotlight over the fighter at least a little bit.


Nope; class balance means to be roughly the same level of abilities, which isn't necessary to being "an important, and valued member of a group"
In a group-based game it is.


False; most hardcore RPers recognize that a character's power level has almost nothing to do with how they impact a story.
Its hard to have an impact on a story when nothing you do is able to change the reality that is going on about you. Its like the red shirts on Star Treck, no impact on the story and no power. Virtually nobody wants to play one of them.


False. They are "even more useless" only in some noncombat situations, not all.
In what non-combat situation is a fighter not "even more useless" than a wizard?


D&D is not designed for low magic; I'd say that you are in the a fairly small minority yourself if play D&D as low magic. If you want low magic, there are a bunch of other games (including some D20 ones) that do low fantasy or historical fantasy better.
Agreed, I DMed one low fantasy campaign with D&D rules and it didn't work well. I DMed another one (the Viking one, forgot to mention that *doh*) with Conan d20 rules and that worked much better.

TheNifty
2007-08-22, 11:38 AM
If each class had their own role in which they could shine then you could just balance them "because of the writing." But some classes shine heavily in multiple roles and some are outclassed in their own area of strength.

This, this, a thousand times this. It's damn near impossible to run a game of DnD in which a fighter and a wizard contribute equally without using rediculously cheap game breaking tactics (like having an antimagic field every five yards). There is nothing a fighter can do, whether combat or non-combat, that a wizard or a cleric can't do better, safer and with a higher chance of success. Fighters get the least skill points and can afford to spend few attribute points on anything but ST, DEX and CON; as such they are the least useful non-combat class. They can't talk their way into the royal ball, or sneak their way past a guard tower, or track a horse through the woods, or create an illusion to distract an angry mob. All of these can be done by a magic user with a decent grasp of the game rules, of course.

A while back I took part in a very fun GURPS campagn set in 1960's europe - the players were spies, trying to help a Russian scientist defect during the (fictional) 1968 Stalingrad Olympics. Of the four players, one was combat-focused, one was the "face", one was a cat-burglar and one was a Q-style inventor. The DM (well, technically it's a GM in GURPS) balanced the campaign so that each of us contributed to the plot, and no-one was useless. If we'd been playing it DnD-style, The DM would have had to balance a game in which one of us was James Bond and the other three were toddlers.

Toddlers with brain-damage. And phocomelia.

Roderick_BR
2007-08-22, 11:55 AM
I don't think this is necessarily true. A 20th level fighter should be very powerful, at fighting, incredible skill with a weapon(s), armor, and tactics. Not changing reality. That's magic, that's the magic people's thing.

My mistake. I meant that a 20th level fighter should have abilities fit for a 20th level character.
Like you said, special non-magic abilities works. ToB was a good step on that direction.

Checking some of the newer replies: Yeah pretty much it. Casters are getting too much power as they level up, because the magic system is screwed, and too many spells are broken. A player shouldn't care if his character is more powerful than the others, he should care about being able to play, at all!
I like to have a fighter do the "dirty job" at being the meat shield, and kill several medium powered enemies, and leave the harder job to the casters. That's his role. But with the current rules, the fighter picks flowers and take care of the mounts while the casters do ALL the job.

Jayabalard
2007-08-22, 12:28 PM
A while back I took part in a very fun GURPS campagn set in 1960's europe That is, of couse, an advantage of point based systems, and one of the primary reasons for playing one.

If I want a game where balance is important, sure, I'll play in a point based system. If I'm going to play in a class based system, class balance is not important.


You can run a game with mechanicly unbalanced classes, but you'll have problems with high LvL combat, the DM has a hell of a job to keep the Melee Characters in the spotlight, the lack of options certain classes have or there weaknesses in general can get in the way of the story (Smooth talking mobile fighters are not the most common type).I don't have those "problems", so you should probably say "I can run a game... I'll have problems" rather than attributing those problems to me.

TheNifty
2007-08-23, 07:20 AM
That is, of couse, an advantage of point based systems, and one of the primary reasons for playing one.

If I want a game where balance is important, sure, I'll play in a point based system. If I'm going to play in a class based system, class balance is not important.

You're missing the point. It isn't class balance that is the problem here (although considering the thread title I can see how you might think I was for it), but ability to contribute to the game. At high levels, fighters can't.

ALOR
2007-08-23, 07:31 AM
You're missing the point. It isn't class balance that is the problem here (although considering the thread title I can see how you might think I was for it), but ability to contribute to the game. At high levels, fighters can't.

As I said earlier, I have played a fighter at high levels who contributed. In fact, i've played many high level fighter types (Barbarian, Ranger, Fighter and Corrupter) and felt incredibly useful and effective in my role. I will also point out that i had spellcasters (Sorcerer twice, Bard, Archmage) in all of those parties. So making blanket statements that fighters "can't" contribute at high levels is not completly true.

TheNifty
2007-08-23, 08:26 AM
So making blanket statements that fighters "can't" contribute at high levels is not completly true.

Fair enough. What I should have said is "fighters can't contribute at high levels assuming their is a competent magic user in the party"

By "competent" I mean; "has a good grasp of the rules, the spells and how to build a powerful high-level character."

That is of course, the other way to ensure fighters are useful at high levels - make sure the player who takes the Wizard is careful not to dominate the game.

Funkyodor
2007-08-23, 08:48 AM
I agree, not that Wizards are overpowered, but that House Rules must be used in D&D to help mitigate some of the power balance. It's just that for every action there must be a reaction, and what the designers forgot and/or did not include in every book are ways to counteract included magical effects either via other magical spells or items at varying prices and effectiveness. The thing to remember is D&D is supossedly a world where magic has always existed so any Nation in existance should have alot of experience dealing with the situations, have created counters for common abuses (charming store owners who either get cheated or do the charming, alter self impersonation murderers, invisible burglars, teleporting bank robbers, etc...), and have theroetical ideas and counteraction plans for High Level threats (programmed amnesia royal takeover, time stop king assassinations, dragon attacks, peasantry revolt). Once the counterforce to magic is in place, the power balance seems to be fluid and changes depending on how the House Rules play out rather than how the original D&D rules work.

Case in point. We had a system in 2ed where rogues were overpowered because we made sneak attack do Con damage. Wizards were reduced because we had items able to protect against all mind effecting spells, amulets of proof against detection fully stopped magical detection abilities, Dusts of Appearance were alchemy and non-magical so alot cheaper, Truesight had a drawback (no save vs vision effects I.E. Medusa's gaze, Glyphs), etc...

Sir Giacomo
2007-08-23, 08:49 AM
This, this, a thousand times this. It's damn near impossible to run a game of DnD in which a fighter and a wizard contribute equally without using rediculously cheap game breaking tactics (like having an antimagic field every five yards).

Have to jump into the discussion here (have not read the entire thread, so pls forgive if I merely repeat stuff).
It is not near impossible in DnD to run a challenging game at high levels with casters and non-caster classes in the same group (for instance, fighter and wizard). It would be a bit of a problem if you have one class wielding magic and the other using no magic at all. THAT would be tough to DM. But the true challenge is to DM at all at high levels - balance is not a factor then in DnD (and any game system trying to simulate the use of magic), but the overall consistency and challenge of the game.

In the DnD system, casters can run out of spells and (contrary to extraordinary abilities or even supernatural abiliiteS) can be dispelled, countered and AMFed, prevented by disrupting line of sight, line of effect, use of components, use of source of magic (spellbooks, deities, beliefs). Plus a completely unexpected situation might turn up where non-spontaneous casters have problems.
There is nothing "ridiculously" cheap in bringing up caster challenges where the non-casters shine at high levels and vice-versa.
It would be ridiculous to let the casters peacefully cast around 80-90% of the ir stuff to overcome nice at high levels, regular encounters and let them automatically regain their spells. Yawn.


There is nothing a fighter can do, whether combat or non-combat, that a wizard or a cleric can't do better, safer and with a higher chance of success.

Ranged combat. Blind-fighting combat. Tactical combat. Intimidate. Using mounts. Permanent abilities not prone to anti-magic/dispelling stuff.


Fighters get the least skill points and can afford to spend few attribute points on anything but ST, DEX and CON; as such they are the least useful non-combat class. They can't talk their way into the royal ball, or sneak their way past a guard tower, or track a horse through the woods, or create an illusion to distract an angry mob. All of these can be done by a magic user with a decent grasp of the game rules, of course.

Yes, true. But magic items also get the fighter quite some way in achieving all of the above things at high levels, while there is hardly any magic or magic items which grant feats (apparently for a reason). Wizards and clerics have most of the magic item options already as spells/per day, so the fighter disproportionately gains from magic items (sure the wizard could get a helm of teleportation to teleport 8 instead of 5 times per day, but for a fighter it is a real kicker). Only if you do not follow the wealth guidelines of the DMG, you'll have to adjust the class powers for game balance.


A while back I took part in a very fun GURPS campagn set in 1960's europe - the players were spies, trying to help a Russian scientist defect during the (fictional) 1968 Stalingrad Olympics. Of the four players, one was combat-focused, one was the "face", one was a cat-burglar and one was a Q-style inventor. The DM (well, technically it's a GM in GURPS) balanced the campaign so that each of us contributed to the plot, and no-one was useless. If we'd been playing it DnD-style, The DM would have had to balance a game in which one of us was James Bond and the other three were toddlers.

No. imo a DM could handle it in exatly the same way in DnD. The thing that is more complicated is a general issue: how to handle magic (something without real life experience) in a game to keep it consistent and realistic, and this is the more difficult, the higher the level (i.e. the more magic can do that has no real life equivalent). Are BBEGs faced with caster players using the same tactics against them that they use vs the non-caster players? That's the challenge.

- Giacomo

Sir Giacomo
2007-08-23, 08:51 AM
@Funkyodor: that was a superb comment. Exactly what I tried to convey as well, but much better said!

- Giacomo

TheNifty
2007-08-23, 09:11 AM
Ranged combat. Blind-fighting combat. Tactical combat. Intimidate. Using mounts. Permanent abilities not prone to anti-magic/dispelling stuff.

Don't have time to respond to your whole post at the moment, but I just wanted to say; while that is certainly true at lower levels, at anything above level 15 or so, a Wizard has spells they can use that will allow them to either do all of those things you've listed better than the fighter, or at least spells that will allow them to to bypass the need for them (overland flight almost always replaces the need to ride, mind-controlling spells do the same for intimidate, for example).

Oh, and tactical combat? wha? the wizard excels at that.

Jayabalard
2007-08-23, 09:13 AM
Fair enough. What I should have said is "fighters can't contribute at high levels assuming their is a competent magic user in the party"

By "competent" I mean; "has a good grasp of the rules, the spells and how to build a powerful high-level character."

That is of course, the other way to ensure fighters are useful at high levels - make sure the player who takes the Wizard is careful not to dominate the game.Like I and others have said, making a blanket statements like this is false.

Certainly, the GM has plan accordingly to make sure that every character can contribute, but has nothing to do with class balance. It would be true even if classes were perfectly balanced.

As it is, each class has it's uses; sure, some may not be as useful as another class; but being less useful than another class is not the same thing as being not useful.


You're missing the point. It isn't class balance that is the problem here (although considering the thread title I can see how you might think I was for it), but ability to contribute to the game. At high levels, fighters can't./boggle.

The question in the thread is specifically about class balance, and the choices were originally stated as "overrated or desperately needed." Other than my initial post, I think all of my posts on this thread have been in response to people responding to my posts, as in, they all trace back to this statement.




So I ask you...

Is class balance a good thing or a bad thing?
Completely overrated; not important in the slightest.

Characters should be different, have totally different levels of power based on their class(es).

all classes should be useful... but that has nothing to do with class balance.

TheNifty
2007-08-23, 09:22 AM
Gyahh, I should be working, not responding to posts, but I just can't resist:


Certainly, the GM has plan accordingly to make sure that every character can contribute, but has nothing to do with class balance. It would be true even if classes were perfectly balanced.

Not at all. The more that classes are balanced (but good in different areas) the easier it is for a DM to ensure that everyone can contribute.


As it is, each class has it's uses; sure, some may not be as useful[ as another class; but being less useful than another class is not the same thing as being not useful.

The problem for me isn't that Fighters are less useful than Wizards, but that wizards and clerics can do anything a fighter can do, plus a bunch of other stuff as well.

Imagine if in 4th edition, they introduced a new class called the Shmighter. Identical to the fighter in every way, except it only got 1d4 hitpoints per level. Would you be arguing that there wasn't a problem, and that DMs just had to come up with ways to make sure everyone could contribute?


The question in the thread is specifically about class balance, and the choices were originally stated as "overrated or desperately needed." Other than my initial post, I think all of my posts on this thread have been in response to people responding to my posts, as in, they all trace back to this statement.

I probably should have put "this is my beef with the way things currently are" somewhere in my posts, sorry. I'm not saying that classes must be balanced perfectly, just that the game would be more fun if everyone could contribute equally or reasonably close to it, and balancing the game could help with that.

Jayabalard
2007-08-23, 09:40 AM
Not at all. The more that classes are balanced (but good in different areas) the easier it is for a DM to ensure that everyone can contribute./shrug

I don't find it particularly hard; it's one of the things that I actually enjoy about GMing, so it's no particular hardship.

regaredless, easier doesn't mean necessary, nor is it the same thing as "good". I consider having unbalanced classes with differing power levels good. I prefer good to easy, so I'll choose to spend the little bit of extra time and have unbalanced classes over having a system with rigorously balanced classes.


The problem for me isn't that Fighters are less useful than Wizards, but that wizards and clerics can do anything a fighter can do, plus a bunch of other stuff as well. That would mean that fighters are "less useful" instead of "not useful"

It you set of situations where the casters can can easily gauge how much of their spells they can ues in each fight (treating "4 encounters per day" as hard an fast rule rather than a guideline) or set the the pace of game so that casters can gain an advantage through narcolepsy, or give them very weak challenges that are soloable to the casters, then sure: the casters can just jump in and do the fighter's job for him. That's called "poor GMing"


Imagine if in 4th edition, they introduced a new class called the Shmighter. Identical to the fighter in every way, except it only got 1d4 hitpoints per level. Would you be arguing that there wasn't a problem, and that DMs just had to come up with ways to make sure everyone could contribute?Yes; people that chose that class over a fighter would obviously be wanting to play something weaker than a fighter, since it the only thing that it offers that is different from a fighter is durability. If a player wants to play a weak character, he should be allowed to, and it's the DM's job to make the game entertaining for everyone.

Certainly, he's going to contribute less than a fighter, but that's ok because that's integral to his character concept.

it's much the same situation to having a fighter in your group who rolls badly on his hp each level; even in a totally non-magic party you'd have to work a little more to make sure he can contribute.


I probably should have put "this is my beef with the way things currently are" in my posts, sorry. I'm not saying that classes must be balanced perfectly, just that the game would be more fun if everyone could contribute equally or reasonably close to it, and balancing the game could help with that.That's not the thread topic. I'm sure it would be a great topic, but this isn't it.

Besides, game balance is not dependent on class balance, which means even if you want game balance, class balance isn't necessary.

Droodle
2007-08-23, 11:17 AM
That's not the thread topic. I'm sure it would be a great topic, but this isn't it.

Besides, game balance is not dependent on class balance, which means even if you want game balance, class balance isn't necessary.Perhaps you feel that game balance is not dependent on class balance, but you'll find yourself in the minority. If the game works for your group and you feel it is reasonably balanced as is, great!!! But you've been around the boards long enough to know that few people have shared your experience, since Clerics were making their warriors obsolete with a 4th level spell and Druids were doing it with a class feature....and a wizard with smart spell selection, even in core, was able to become completely invulnerable to the majority of non-magic using foes by casting 2 3rd level spells (which are available in the Core package).

Jayabalard
2007-08-23, 11:33 AM
Perhaps you feel that game balance is not dependent on class balance, but you'll find yourself in the minority. I have never claimed otherwise. Nor have I claimed that the game is balanced (or should be); far from it, I revel in it's unbalances, otherwise I'd be playing a point based system.

If anyone can play the D&D and have each character be useful and have their time in the spotlight regardless of class, then class balance is not is not necessary. It may be something that certain people want... but it's not necessary.

TheNifty
2007-08-23, 11:50 AM
If anyone can play the D&D and have each character be useful and have their time in the spotlight regardless of class, then class balance is not is not necessary.

I'd argue that's how things are now, at least with experienced players who know the intricacies of the magic using classes.

Of course, if you and your gaming group aren't having any problems, then by all means don't let me stop you playing the way you want to play. I just feel that if the game was balanced better it would be more fun and give all the players a better experience.

Artemician
2007-08-23, 11:55 AM
I have never claimed otherwise. Nor have I claimed that the game is balanced; far from it, I revel in it's unbalances (otherwise I'd be playing a point based system)


While having unbalanced classes may not impact a game negatively, in what way does it make a game any better? You say that it is "Good" to have to juggle around with party dynamics to have a fun game. I do not see your logic. Could you please explain?



If anyone can play the D&D and have each character be useful and have their time in the spotlight regardless of class, then class balance is not is not necessary.

Class Balance is not essential, as in that you can still run a fun game even with it's absence. But I think what you might fail to understand, is simply that Class Balance helps contribute to a fun game. It makes it easier for the GM to his job, for him to ensure that everybody can contribute, and have a fun time.

You claim that you can solve the problems when you GM and have everyone contribute equally. Doubtless, you have had much experience with GMing, before you could get to this level. Isn't it foolish to think that all other people would have this level of experience? Some people just want to have a good session; they don't want to have to spend a long time studying the rules and figuring out what to do to make sure Batman doesn't outright dominate The Thing.



Not at all. The more that classes are balanced (but good in different areas) the easier it is for a DM to ensure that everyone can contribute.

Falrin
2007-08-23, 12:10 PM
What's poor DM about a Druid wildshaping in a Dire Bear with Hour/LvL buffs on him & his companion ripping the fighter appart?

You say:
Classess should all be usefull and everybody agrees.
Balance has nothing to do with usefullness and not everybody agrees.

The best example given is the Shmighter. The Shmighter is clearly, mechanicly unblanced. Good, if you want to play one, go ahead.

'Oh , but I will, and my cunning tactics, conversations and occasional ranged hit will make me usefull.'

Can you see that the majority of the people would not enjoy this? That a DM Doesn't want to avoid every damage effect to hit you?

As a DM I want to use my BBeG as optimal as I can. It's realistic. An intelligent Wizard will hit the fighter with Dominate Person instead of Cone of Cold. While flying. And being invisible. He's not going to pop before the fighter and cast Maximized Magic missle to get charged for 1k damage the next round.


Take this example:

The BBeG hires 2 LvL 9 wizards to get rid of the party
The Party is our Typical 11th LvL Fighter, Rogue, Cleric & Wizard.
This Encoutner shoudl take up 25% of there resources.

But what would happen?

The Wizards cast fly. They Cast greater Invisibility. Still hidden they summoning 2 howlers each. Now they comman these creatures to the next room and attack the meatschield while flying in with them.

An easy fight ensues. But the fighter gets hit by 3 quils (on the low side).

When the fight is over both wizards cast dominate person (DC 21: 5 int, 5 spell, 1 focus).

One goes for the rogue, the other one for the Fighter.

Will saves: +3 base, +1 Ability ?, +2 Cloak?: +6

For the rogue this means a 75% succes rate.

Lets assume the fighter took Iron will, but he also get hits by at least 2 Quils netting.

So another 75% for the fighter.

With a some extra effort these chances could be easely improved.

So let's assume they both fail.

Now the encounter is a

2*CR9 & 2*CE11 Vs 2* ECL 11

This will probably lead to a TPK.


You will say that it's a DM's job to keep this from happening.
I will say any decent BBeG would use these, very basic tactics.
And these spells are not even close to the broken ones, this isn't optimized playing, this is basic use of decent powered Arcane Spells killing your fighter (and turning him against his own party).

Funkyodor
2007-08-23, 12:17 PM
So, the consensus is that because a cleric/mage might become better than a fighter for combat rounds per respective spell cast (the mage can't cast and effectively becomes a fighter with no feats and probably crappy HP, I mean those stat bonuses are there to equate the mage STR to what the Fighter should already have) that they becomes more hack and slashy than a Fighter? Or is it that source book hopping spell/feat combinations cause this imbalance? What I'm trying to say is find the actual source and plug it. Restrict Permenancy to only the spells listed in the spell description. Seriously consider changing certain rods of metamagic. Review all the Sudden metamagic feats. Take a look at manipulations with the cleric metamagic feats (can't remember what they are called, they take turn attempts). Once these are clamped down then see if balance is restored and "all is well with the Force".

Jayabalard
2007-08-23, 12:47 PM
Can you see that the majority of the people would not enjoy this? That a DM Doesn't want to avoid every damage effect to hit you? I don't understand... if they won't enjoy playing that class, then why would they choose it? It's not like you roll on a chart to determine your starting class.


Class balance has nothing to do with usefullness and not everybody agrees. nor does everyone disagree.

If all classes can be useful in a game without balance, then balance is not required for everyone to be useful

People have stated here that they have played in parties that mixed casters and fighters where everyone was useful; this is in D&D, which does not have balanced classes.

Sounds like balanced classes are not required for everyone to be useful to me, as long as you have a good GM


As a DM I want to use my BBeG as optimal as I can. It's realistic. /shrug ... it makes for a less good story than one that is overconfident, or has other weaknesses for the heroes to exploit. Defeating someone by being more powerful than them is the height of boring.


I will say any decent BBeG would use these, very basic tactics.Are you honestly trying to claim that a party shouldn't be pretty easy to TPK with a totally undetected ambush by people using magic? Especially when the ambushers have enough intelligence (both the scouting kind and the IQ kind) to be able to pick out who is what class and know what their relevant weaknesses are (either that or they are using metagame knowledge). That seems kind of absurd: of course that should lead to a tpk.

On the BBEG has better loot than the party, and it's almost certainly better than what he's paying; if he could find two wizards of sufficient level who were the type of people to be interested in hunting down the party for payment, what's to stop them from killing the BBEG instead? It'd be more profitable for them, and 2 (or 4) on 1 is generally better odds than 2 on 4.

TheNifty
2007-08-23, 12:54 PM
I don't understand... if they won't enjoy playing that class, then why would they choose it? It's not like you roll on a chart to determine your starting class.

Well no, but not everyone wants to play as a Wizard; some people want to play the typical fantasy fighter - sword and shield against magic and treachery. Currently if they want to do this, they can't (without feeling useless) above level 10 or so.


it makes for a less good story than one that is overconfident, or has other weaknesses for the heroes to exploit. Defeating someone by being more powerful than them is the height of boring.

On that we disagree. If the villain isn't competent, there's no thrill in outwitting him.

horseboy
2007-08-23, 06:50 PM
Well no, but not everyone wants to play as a Wizard; some people want to play the typical fantasy fighter - sword and shield against magic and treachery. Currently if they want to do this, they can't (without feeling useless) above level 10 or so.



On that we disagree. If the villain isn't competent, there's no thrill in outwitting him.

Give it up, Jayabalard is the second coming, who's poo smells of bakery fresh cinnamon buns. Haven't you figured this out yet?

But seriously, instead of just automatically nay saying, Jay, how about examples of when you were playing a high level fighter and were useful in your role. Sharing of tactics are what's needed here, not condescension.

Ceridan
2007-08-24, 02:09 AM
The wizard/cleric/druid is GOD of the 3.5 system. They do spank the the melee fighter types. That said there is no reason that the melee types can not contribute to the game at high levels. I have run many a campaign, and would go so far as to say I am a good DM.

Why am I a good DM?

Glad you asked. I take in to account that the blaster/batman is going to rule the field and hog the poor little melee fighters glory. I give the God something else to worry about so the fighter can have his/her turn in the spotlight.

Can you give an example?

Sure.
The party had defeated the BBEG and her henchman and the saved the land from a dark fate. One problem the BBEG had some left over allies. Nothing can ruin a nice party retirement like loose ends.

The party:
Alor, CG Human/werewolf barbarian whom worships Selune. Yes the same Alor is on this forum.
Dain, NG Dwarven Cleric of Clanggedin. Goes by Rollfrenzy on this forum.
Tralantra, CG Elven Sorceress (blaster)
Aonis, LG Asimar Paladin/knight of the chalice

Loose ends:
Ash, CE Ancient wyrm Grey Dragon (Half Red, Half Fang):smalleek:
Selina, NE Elven Sorceress (batgirl), Tralantra's Mother:smallfrown:
Varathrax, CE Balor/Fiend of corruption:smallmad:

To make a long story short, The party located Ash's cave and went to kill the beast. Unfortunately the other baddies were in attendance. Finding clues to this effect the party split off to deal with their own demons. Alor and Dain, long standing friends and great role players took on Ash. Tralantra, roll player and rokiee , took on Selina. And Aonis also a great role player challenged Varathax. Three separate and truly epic battles raged with-in a few hundred feet of each-other. Role playing and roll playing were had by all and all enjoyed. They all got their moment in the spot-light, they all shined.

The balance issue can be a problem. That problem is nothing a good DM and good Players can not overcome to have a great gaming experience.

Sir Giacomo
2007-08-24, 04:11 AM
The best example given is the Shmighter. The Shmighter is clearly, mechanicly unblanced. Good, if you want to play one, go ahead.

The Shmighter is a poor example, since in the rules there is maybe only the Samurai base class that fits this description. Otherwise, the classes are not so easily comparable, hence the many different opinions on what class is strongest in what situation at what levels in what kind of group.


As a DM I want to use my BBeG as optimal as I can. It's realistic. An intelligent Wizard will hit the fighter with Dominate Person instead of Cone of Cold. While flying. And being invisible. He's not going to pop before the fighter and cast Maximized Magic missle to get charged for 1k damage the next round.

Maximised magic missile cast out of surprise is going to hurt a wizard much more than the fighter, so opponent wizards using this kind of tactics will likely take out the party wizard first. Dominate person is somewhat awkward, since you can be sure (if as a DM you are not highly careful about it, or vice-versa if players use it) that the party fighter will get TWO saving throws. The first against the spell, the second at +2 against the typical thing commanded "attack your friends". Other will save spells like hold person/monster are likewise powerful only in certain circumstances, since most will only delay, as they allow a saving throw/round. It is not THAT easy to take out a fighter in an adventuring group.



Take this example:

The BBeG hires 2 LvL 9 wizards to get rid of the party
The Party is our Typical 11th LvL Fighter, Rogue, Cleric & Wizard.
This Encoutner shoudl take up 25% of there resources.

But what would happen?

The Wizards cast fly. They Cast greater Invisibility. Still hidden they summoning 2 howlers each. Now they comman these creatures to the next room and attack the meatschield while flying in with them.

First problem: will the wizards get surprise? The wizards do not have move silently (which you have to roll even when flying), while the party rogue likely has spot/listen maxed and thus could warn his party. And the wizards really need to get a good opportunity here, since greater invisibility is quickly gone (round/level spell). If the party simply retreats (no resources spent), the wizards fail (the summoned monsters likewise only last rounds/level).
Then: why should the wizards attack the "meatshields" first if those pose the least threat for them currently? They should concentrate on the spellcasters who could dispel their stuff and use the monsters to keep meleers at bay.


You will say that it's a DM's job to keep this from happening.
I will say any decent BBeG would use these, very basic tactics.
And these spells are not even close to the broken ones, this isn't optimized playing, this is basic use of decent powered Arcane Spells killing your fighter (and turning him against his own party).

Any decent BBEG may possibly not use the tactics you suggested, since they are highly risky. Your scenario serves as a typical example that many overestimate the stuff spells can do and then judge overall class balance on it.
My point remains: not class balance is a problem for DMing, but the presence of magic which gets more complicated, the higher the level is (and overestimating what magic can do is part of that problem).

- Giacomo

Journey
2007-08-24, 04:54 AM
I agree with you Indon, However, these stories and DnD have not as much in common as you think. DnD is designed to be about combat. you are supposed to fight 4 different things a day. While I agree that storytelling is more fun, and our groups don't come anywhere near four encounters a day, there needs to be some reconciliation between wiz, cod-zilla, and everybody else.Well, for that glorious era encompassing 1e and pre-Players-Option 2e, D&D was not designed to be about combat. It stopped being purely about combat when Gygax turned his war combat simulator rules into a fantasy adventure game. It started being (almost purely) about combat again when Wizards recognized that the latest generation of kids they'd need to replace those who've moved on to other systems or stopped gaming altogether have been raised on combat-driven cRPGs and MMORPGs, and decided to design 3/3.5 accordingly so as to appeal to them.

It's tough to get people who've never played a good 1e or 2e game to see just how much 3/3.5 has changed the face of D&D from a role-playing game that is weighted toward combat encounters to a number-crunching combat simulator that benefits from an established brand.

The whole notion that "all the classes must be strictly balanced" is a copped idea from MMORPGs. The only way to perfectly balance the classes is to provide each of them with a set of abilities that do identical damage in identical ways, on average, and call them different things. That's uncreative and boring.

The whole point of D&D is not to provide a set of rules for a DM to be a human computer while players traipse through dungeons, rolling dice to kill things and get loot (even in 3/3.5e, though it comes close). It's to provide a template for creative DMs to throw situations at characters that are challenging for their group, and for players to have fun solving these challenges. In this light, "class balance" is relatively meaningless. Although, I suppose to be fair, it is probably more important in 3/3.5e than it has been in the past, for reasons that should be obvious.

nagora
2007-08-24, 05:57 AM
Well, for that glorious era encompassing 1e and pre-Players-Option 2e, D&D was not designed to be about combat. It stopped being purely about combat when Gygax turned his war combat simulator rules into a fantasy adventure game.

Oh, yeah! Preach it, baby!



The whole notion that "all the classes must be strictly balanced" is a copped idea from MMORPGs. The only way to perfectly balance the classes is to provide each of them with a set of abilities that do identical damage in identical ways, on average, and call them different things. That's uncreative and boring.

This is more or less true. Where the problem starts to arise is when one class overtakes the others as the levels increase. So a classic 2 Fighters, a cleric and a Magic User group start off together and the DM can design encounters and whole scenarios based on the relative merits of each PC. But later (about 16th level in 1ed, earlier in 3e where melee is so much easier for Wizards) the MU really starts to expand his/her abilities very quickly per level. It then becomes harder for the DM to balance the game and, on a more practical level, cope with the MU's player going on holiday for a while (suddenly the encounter difficulty has to be radically changed across the board).

Strict class balance is not needed, but I have a problem with a starting group of equals progressing over time into "The Wizard and his mobile HP bank". The latter is fine as a concept and is the foundation of Ars Magica, but it's unfair on the other players if that's not what they expected nor even what the experienced at lower levels.


The whole point of D&D is not to provide a set of rules for a DM to be a human computer while players traipse through dungeons, rolling dice to kill things and get loot (even in 3/3.5e, though it comes close). It's to provide a template for creative DMs to throw situations at characters that are challenging for their group, and for players to have fun solving these challenges.

Sadly, you're a couple of decades out of date there. Any game with a "4 encounters per day, every day" rule is no longer a creative environment. The DM is regularly viewed as precisely the "human computer" you mentioned with on-the-fly decisions that are not justified by the RAW (or, crime of crimes, actually overrule the RAW in a particular situation) are viewed as attempts to screw the players out of the next bunch of stat bonuses for their spreadsheet-like characters.

horseboy
2007-08-24, 10:36 AM
wisdom

Ditto this.

Thrawn183
2007-08-25, 01:01 AM
The problem is a lack of a niche. I wouldn't give a hoot'n'anny if the wizard could level mountains and my character couldn't pick up a pencil as long as my character could do things the wizard couldn't.

There was a recent thread about allowing rogues to sneak attack more types of enemies. I was adamently opposed to the idea because rogues are already great with skills. They don't need to suddenly become good at combat, because then they'd be stepping on the melee'rs toes.

So look at a high level fighter. Tell me, what is his/her niche? Is it damage? Is it social encounters? Is it stopping enemies from harming party members? Is it disarming traps? Is it procuring transportation (re: teleportation/plane shift)?

How do you tailor a high level encounter, that involves the entire party, to be a moment where the fighter shines over everyone else?

Fhaolan
2007-08-25, 01:29 AM
So look at a high level fighter. Tell me, what is his/her niche? Is it damage? Is it social encounters? Is it stopping enemies from harming party members? Is it disarming traps? Is it procuring transportation (re: teleportation/plane shift)?


I like the transportation angle for the Fighter. He gets to hold the horses.

:smallbiggrin:

Huh? Oh no, I've got no real reason to be here... Moving right along... :smalltongue:

Counterspin
2007-08-25, 03:35 PM
Some people play D&D with heavy roleplay, and others prefer the tactical, crunchier side of things. If the classes were balanced, it would be a great boon to the latter, and have no effect on the former. Given that strong class balance is certainly doable, I never understood why you would be against it.

PirateMonk
2007-08-25, 03:41 PM
The problem is a lack of a niche. I wouldn't give a hoot'n'anny if the wizard could level mountains and my character couldn't pick up a pencil as long as my character could do things the wizard couldn't.

Agreed. It's when casters start making others obsolete that blatant class imbalance become an issue.

Rex Blunder
2007-08-25, 04:21 PM
Well, for that glorious era encompassing 1e and pre-Players-Option 2e, D&D was not designed to be about combat. [...] The whole notion that "all the classes must be strictly balanced" is a copped idea from MMORPGs.

I would disagree that balance between the classes was not important in 1e, and so, I think, would Gary Gygax.


Participants will always be pushing for a game which allows them to become strong and powerful far too quickly... To satisfy this natural desire is to issue a death warrant to a campaign, for it will either be a one-player affair or the players will desert en masse for something that is more challenging and equitable. (1e DMG, Introduction)


Classes have restrictions in order to give a varied and unique approach to each class when they play, as well as to provide play balance. (1e PHB, Introduction)


The characters and races from which the players select are carefully thought out and balanced... (1e PHB, Introduction)


Clerics and fighters have been strengthened in relation to magic-users, although not overly so... None of these overshadow thieves. (1e PHB, Introduction)

(I would also disagree that 1e was not combat-centered. 1e was largely, very largely, about dungeon crawling -- combat, traps, and treasure. Perhaps more so than 3rd edition, I think. But I don't feel like looking for quotes to back that up right now.)

nagora
2007-08-25, 04:53 PM
Participants will always be pushing for a game which allows them to become strong and powerful far too quickly...



I find it deeply ironic that the man who wrote this also thanked Skip Williams for his comments/contributions in the introduction. If only he'd known, perhaps he would have become a watchmaker.

Daimbert
2007-08-25, 05:55 PM
The whole notion that "all the classes must be strictly balanced" is a copped idea from MMORPGs. The only way to perfectly balance the classes is to provide each of them with a set of abilities that do identical damage in identical ways, on average, and call them different things. That's uncreative and boring.


Actually, it wasn't until WoW that this notion of "class balance" got any play at all, mostly because of soloability. Before that, it was all about the issues that you are raising here about D&D: how do I design the classes so that at all levels there's a reason to have one in the party (even if you don't always have one member of every class in a party).

So, to take City of Heroes as an example, why would anyone take a Tank in a party if a Controller could simply lock and keep everything locked down? Why take a Controller if they can't lock anything down at all? It takes a fair amount of balancing to ensure that a class can DO something in encounters without dominating the encounters themselves.

Taking the Defender class shows, however, how MMORPG people think. Empathy was the only Defender class that healed (ie restored hit points). But many of the other classes boosted attack or mitigated defense far better, and were even considered more useful than Empathy ... by good players. Bad players thought "Heal good", but good players knew the abilities of the powersets and knew what they were good for.

Okay, so how does this fit in to the discussion? Well, magic users sound like they are a bit overpowered, but the way to balance properly is NOT to have things do the same damage in different ways, but to have classes do DIFFERENT THINGS. And if you want to limit magic users ... make them choose. So a magic user can be a unstoppable offensive force ... but can't dominate or lock down opponents (opposing schools is a good way to do this). Want to lock things down? Give up your offensive powers. Etc, etc. Also, make fighters useful for other things, so that hitting things with a sword is sometimes the best thing possible. So give some enemies magic resistance, and some physical resistance, and so balance things that way. And so on.

What balance means is that all classes CAN have a role in the party. Yes, a magic user should be better than a fighter ... in some instances. But not in others. Adding a creature who can attack with, say, a DoT (or in a room with a DoT effect) makes the high HP fighters more useful since they'll LIVE long enough without healing to do the job.

So balance is important ... but balance does not mean perfectly balanced, but just that every class has something about it that can be useful, and is generally not TOTALLY useless (except in special circumstances). And so then if a class IS generally useless, you can blame the DM for creating too many of those special circumstances.

And hitting things with a sword is never totally useless. It's just that magic can do a lot of damage in a short period of time so it isn't particularly REQUIRED.

Jayabalard
2007-08-26, 12:22 AM
Actually, it wasn't until WoW that this notion of "class balance" got any play at all, mostly because of soloability. Before that, it was all about the issues that you are raising here about D&D: how do I design the classes so that at all levels there's a reason to have one in the party (even if you don't always have one member of every class in a party)./boggle

Class balance was an issue in earlier mmo's far before WoW was released ... just as an easy example: in EQ it was an issue both pre-kunark, and especially post kunark when the level cap was raised.



And if you want to limit magic users ... make them choose. So a magic user can be a unstoppable offensive force ... but can't dominate or lock down opponents (opposing schools is a good way to do this). Want to lock things down? Give up your offensive powers.This works in an MMO where verisimilitude isn't important, but isn't an appropriate solution for a P'n'P rpg.

lord of pixies
2007-08-26, 12:31 AM
the hole point is that each class is gifted at its own traits the worior at close up but kickin, the wizerd at ofence when protected, rouges at sneek attack. the point is that they cant be compared, a cliche' apples to ornges

lord of pixies
2007-08-26, 12:32 AM
i agee with one before my last post

Artemician
2007-08-26, 12:43 AM
Some people play D&D with heavy roleplay, and others prefer the tactical, crunchier side of things. If the classes were balanced, it would be a great boon to the latter, and have no effect on the former. Given that strong class balance is certainly doable, I never understood why you would be against it.

Bingo. This is exactly what I've been trying to say.

Since it doesn't affect Roleplay in the slightest, why are you so against it, even if you claim that it doesn't affect gameplay?

It may not be important, but any improvement at all would make it worth considering.


the hole point is that each class is gifted at its own traits the worior at close up but kickin, the wizerd at ofence when protected, rouges at sneek attack. the point is that they cant be compared, a cliche' apples to ornges

It IS a problem when a class is so completely good at one thing that it makes everyone else have un-fun, or when a class subsumes another class' role.

An example of the first case would be.. say. an Ubercharger.

DM: Roll initiative.
Player1: I got a 20.
Player2: 15
Player3: 4
Player4: 25
DM: Okay, the demon-
Player4: I charge. What's the demon's AC?
DM: Uh.. 25
Player4: Okay, I hit on a 2. Does the Demon have more than 150 hitpoints? Because that's what I'm PowerAttacking for.
DM: *boggles*

The second example would be a Druid. He fights as well as a Fighter AND can do additional stuff, such as casting Spells and possess an Animal Companion.

Journey
2007-08-26, 06:13 AM
Bingo. This is exactly what I've been trying to say.

Since it doesn't affect Roleplay in the slightest, why are you so against it, even if you claim that it doesn't affect gameplay?Let's see.

First, you can't just claim that altering the mechanics doesn't affect the roleplay aspects of the game. You're asserting that "fluff" and "crunch" are perfectly independent. In addition to being incorrect, this is something usually only people who don't role-play at all, or who role-play very little, say because they're used to after-the-fact justification for mechanics.

This is curious--after all, if the "fluff" didn't matter, why even bother with an after-the-fact rationalization of the "crunch" involved. If it were so, why not just get rid of the fluff altogether and play D&D the way such people clearly want to--as a dice game contest (maybe they could even be required to offer up dice to the winner, as in the card "trading" games)?

Second, the roles characters can take and still maintain verisimilitude do, in fact, depend on the "crunch" to a fair bit. That's why I described D&D under the previous editions as a "role-playing game weighted toward combat encounters." I think few people would seriously suggest that D&D has ever been purely about role-playing. It started as a medieval combat simulator game and morphed into a fantasy adventure role-playing game. The "adventure" in there has historically always been associated with conflict, and usually combat.



It IS a problem when a class is so completely good at one thing that it makes everyone else have un-fun, or when a class subsumes another class' role.

(example follows)
Yes, I'll agree that the 3/3.5e rules are incredibly broken, for both "fluff" and "crunch." The reason they're broken is because they were designed with cRPGs and MMORPGs in mind, with the recognition that to get new consumers in the typical starting age-bracket for such games as D&D (10-14), D&D would have to resemble such games. The combat in these games is broken, though, and it always will be until every class has exactly the same damage table, but with different labels.

Green Bean
2007-08-26, 06:35 AM
Yes, changing mechanics can change the fluff, but not always. If I change the cleric class so that they cast one less spell per day, or shrink their spell list, how much have I modified the fluff? The cleric is still a spellcaster, still granted his/her power from his/her god, still heals wounds, or inflicts them. Would it be an attempt at changing the mechanics to balance the game? Absolutely.

nagora
2007-08-26, 08:24 AM
Given that strong class balance is certainly doable, I never understood why you would be against it.

It is not doable. Approximate balance is probably doable but strict balance is not since play style affects it and the rules should have no control over that.

Artemician
2007-08-26, 08:32 AM
Let's see.

First, you can't just claim that altering the mechanics doesn't affect the roleplay aspects of the game. You're asserting that "fluff" and "crunch" are perfectly independent. In addition to being incorrect, this is something usually only people who don't role-play at all, or who role-play very little, say because they're used to after-the-fact justification for mechanics.

Hoh yay! Passive-aggressive insults! Whee! *knocks self out*. You're making two assertions here. Firstly, that fluff and crunch cannot be independent, which is a pretty valid view. But, evidence?

The second is that I'm somehow a bad roleplayer because I take this view. I'm not going to go into that.


This is curious--after all, if the "fluff" didn't matter, why even bother with an after-the-fact rationalization of the "crunch" involved. If it were so, why not just get rid of the fluff altogether and play D&D the way such people clearly want to--as a dice game contest (maybe they could even be required to offer up dice to the winner, as in the card "trading" games)?


I've never said that fluff didn't matter. What I said, was that game balance can be achieved without affecting fluff. Big difference there, innit?


Second, the roles characters can take and still maintain verisimilitude do, in fact, depend on the "crunch" to a fair bit. That's why I described D&D under the previous editions as a "role-playing game weighted toward combat encounters." I think few people would seriously suggest that D&D has ever been purely about role-playing. It started as a medieval combat simulator game and morphed into a fantasy adventure role-playing game. The "adventure" in there has historically always been associated with conflict, and usually combat.

Precisely. How can you feel epic playing as a Fighter, if you have that niggling feeling at the back of your head that a Wizard 5 levels below you can kill you with ease? It's hard, very hard. If you want to maintain verisimilitude, you need a modicum of class balance, so that the party is an powerful party, not one powerful person with 3 tag-alongs.


The combat in these games is broken, though, and it always will be until every class has exactly the same damage table, but with different labels.

I disagree. You can have perfectly fine balance, even if each class does different things.

Droodle
2007-08-26, 08:34 AM
It is not doable. Approximate balance is probably doable but strict balance is not since play style affects it and the rules should have no control over that.OK. No one is arguing for the impossible, here. Approximate balance would still be a gigantic step up from 3.x, would it not? No one is arguing for Wizards of the Coast to develop a complex differential equation which achieves perfect and absolute balance of each and every class in the game. Even if it were possible to develop some such an equation, it probably still wouldn't work. No, what we want is for the classes to be as balanced as possible....you know, so a level 20 fighter might actually be some kind of a threat to that level 10 wizard.

Journey
2007-08-26, 08:57 AM
Hoh yay! Passive-aggressive insults! Whee! *knocks self out*. You're making two assertions here. Firstly, that fluff and crunch cannot be independent, which is a pretty valid view. But, evidence?

The second is that I'm somehow a bad roleplayer because I take this view. I'm not going to go into that.

I've never said that fluff didn't matter. What I said, was that game balance can be achieved without affecting fluff. Big difference there, innit?

Precisely. How can you feel epic playing as a Fighter, if you have that niggling feeling at the back of your head that a Wizard 5 levels below you can kill you with ease? It's hard, very hard. If you want to maintain verisimilitude, you need a modicum of class balance, so that the party is an powerful party, not one powerful person with 3 tag-alongs.

I disagree. You can have perfectly fine balance, even if each class does different things.
For the evidence you asked about, consider any class, change its mechanics in a non-trivial way, and then claim the fluff behind it doesn't have to change accordingly. For example, change the fighter's "crunch" so that instead of multiple attacks starting at level 6 he can empower his sword with a field that does magic damage to any enemy in addition to melee damage. This is a change in the mechanic of a fighter, but it also changes the fluff behind him--he's not really a meleer anymore, but also a magic-user (albeit in a very limited sense). Even trivial changes, such as a minor reduction in spells-per-day, have impacts on the fluff (albeit sometimes trivial ones).

As for "feeling epic" as a fighter--that's a matter of play style. Verisimilitude does require some balance between the classes--just not to the extent that "class balance" is meant in the context it is brought up in these days (try not to equivocate on this one again, please). "Feeling epic" is going to depend on the person stating the feeling. Some people don't "feel epic" unless their characters are caricatures of "people"--superhero comic book characters doing superhero, comic book things, such as the average 3/3.5e character might. Some won't "feel epic" unless their characters are actually superior to others'. Some "feel epic" by simply participating in a grand plot.

I'm not disagreeing that the 3/3.5e mechanics are broken. I'm also not disagreeing that there has to be some balance amongst the classes. What I do disagree with is the focus on balancing classes ("class balance").

Artemician
2007-08-26, 09:54 AM
For the evidence you asked about, consider any class, change its mechanics in a non-trivial way, and then claim the fluff behind it doesn't have to change accordingly. For example, change the fighter's "crunch" so that instead of multiple attacks starting at level 6 he can empower his sword with a field that does magic damage to any enemy in addition to melee damage. This is a change in the mechanic of a fighter, but it also changes the fluff behind him--he's not really a meleer anymore, but also a magic-user (albeit in a very limited sense). Even trivial changes, such as a minor reduction in spells-per-day, have impacts on the fluff (albeit sometimes trivial ones).

The "Magic Field" effect could really be the Fighter channeling the Power of Heart to score deeper wounds, or a group of micro-organisms living in his bloodstream manipulating the time-space continuum to augment the Fighter's power. Or in this case, Jedi's. Because Crunch is basically just numbers on a sheet in any case.

Some fluff changes do force a crunch change (for example, if you fluff, say, Iron Heart Surge as a bunch of fey helping the Warblade to dispel his ailments, pop goes (Ex), hello (Su). But for the most part, most fluff changes don't really need it, since if you go really radical with the re-fluffing, odds are that there is another, better fitting alternative.


"Feeling epic" is going to depend on the person stating the feeling. Some people don't "feel epic" unless their characters are caricatures of "people"--superhero comic book characters doing superhero, comic book things, such as the average 3/3.5e character might. Some won't "feel epic" unless their characters are actually superior to others'. Some "feel epic" by simply participating in a grand plot.

Playstyle differences do play a part, yes, but I think we can generalize here that it's hard to enjoy yourself if you're the same level as Ms Mialee over here, and yet you're rendered completely useless by here, especially in such a combat-oriented RPG such as D&D.


I'm not disagreeing that the 3/3.5e mechanics are broken. I'm also not disagreeing that there has to be some balance amongst the classes. What I do disagree with is the focus on balancing classes ("class balance").

Strange. I don't really recall saying anything about how bad D&D mechanics were, or trying to prove my point to you. All I tried to do was show how badly balanced characters can make gameplay not fun. If I implied that, then I'm sorry.

But what's so strange with the focus on balancing classes? After all, most classes can be balanced in a way that doesn't adversely affect roleplay, but gives a great boon to crunchier gameplay. Is there anythign wrong with that?

Jayabalard
2007-08-26, 11:17 AM
Approximate balance would still be a gigantic step up from 3.x, would it not? No.


Well no, but not everyone wants to play as a Wizard; some people want to play the typical fantasy fighter - sword and shield against magic and treachery. Currently if they want to do this, they can't (without feeling useless) above level 10 or so.Yes... they can... just like the typical fantasy fighter, the wizard is much much more powerful than him and can do things that the fantasy fighter can only dream of.


On that we disagree. If the villain isn't competent, there's no thrill in outwitting him."Has weakness that can be exploited" isn't the same thing as "isn't competent". Nor is "optimized" the same thing as "competent"

Neon Knight
2007-08-26, 11:21 AM
Yes... they can... just like the typical fantasy fighter, the wizard is much much more powerful than him and can do things that the fantasy fighter can only dream of.


May I inquire why has this to be so? What fundamental law of the universe do we violate if we let the fighter do amazing and incredible things by virtue of his honor, his strength, or his skill?



"Has weakness that can be exploited" isn't the same thing as "isn't competent".


True, but if those weakness are too dire and too easily exploited, competency will suffer greatly.


Nor is "optimized" the same thing as "competent"

Optimization tends to lead to competency, and a certain degree of optimization is required for competency.

Jayabalard
2007-08-26, 11:27 AM
May I inquire why has this to be so? What fundamental law of the universe do we violate if we let the fighter do amazing and incredible things by virtue of his honor, his strength, or his skill?I'm pretty sure that D&D lets them do that already, and has since 1ed.


True, but if those weakness are too dire and too easily exploited, competency will suffer greatly. And? I've not claimed otherwise.


Optimization tends to lead to competency, and a certain degree of optimization is required for competency./shrug... that doesn't mean making the "BBeG as optimal as I can [is] realistic."

The best villains generally have some sort of flaw; heroic fantasy is full of villains who are only defeatable by capitalizing on their weaknesses.

Defeating villains by being more powerful than them... well, it works in DBZ, but most, who really cares if your power level is over 9000.

Neon Knight
2007-08-26, 11:34 AM
I'm pretty sure that D&D lets them do that already, and has since 1ed.


Allow me to rephrase the question. The Wizard can violate reality to a stunning degree via his intellect. Why can not the fighter violate reality to the same degree via his great strength, his impeccable honor, his unbeatable skill, or his undying valor?


And... your point? I've not claimed otherwise.

No, but any weakness in a foe must be carefully handled. A troll who faces no fire or acid is formidable, and the PCs will have to expend much of their resources or resort to cunning to incapacitate it. But if these are available to PCs, a troll becomes an unmemorable encounter.


/shrug... that doesn't mean making the "BBeG as optimal as I can [is] realistic."

And why not? For example, let us suppose the BBEG in question is a dragon or a mindflayer. These are creatures of unbelievable and unparalleled intelligence. Their thought processes must surely be vastly beyond ours. It makes sense that creatures of such great intellect and insight would minimize their weaknesses while maximizing their potential.



The best villains generally have some sort of flaw; heroic fantasy is full of villains who are only defeatable by capitalizing on their weaknesses.

Defeating villains by being more powerful than them... well, it works in DBZ, but most, who really cares if your power level is over 9000.

Oh, how bloody original of you. Achilles is turning in his grave, by the way.

Is it so presumptuous to assume that a villain is defeat able without the players having to resort to some cheesy win button, like a heel?

Defeating a villain, not because you happened to know his dread secret and one weakness, but because you used superior strategy, winning not because you threw acid in his face while playing chess but just by beating him at his own game...

That is the height of glorious achievement.

Journey
2007-08-26, 11:44 AM
Allow me to rephrase the question. The Wizard can violate reality to a stunning degree via his intellect. Why can not the fighter violate reality to the same degree via his great strength, his impeccable honor, his unbeatable skill, or his undying valor?Because that isn't the way things (used to) work in the D&D game (I'd say starting with 3.x and the onset of the comic book superhero PC archetype it's a weaker case to make).


And why not? For example, let us suppose the BBEG in question is a dragon or a mindflayer. These are creatures of unbelievable and unparalleled intelligence. Their thought processes must surely be vastly beyond ours. It makes sense that creatures of such great intellect and insight would minimize their weaknesses while maximizing their potential.
"Min/maxing" isn't something that belongs in a game that purports to be for "cooperative storytelling;" it's something that belongs in a fantasy card-trading game or a computer game. Play a cRPG or a MMORPG if all you want is to optimize your dice rolls.

On the other hand, if 3.x is any indication, you'll have your wish soon enough; just next year even, when 4e comes out and fighters resemble melee-sorcerers more than non-magic-users, and every class is distilled into a homogenized lump of plusses to be applied to dice rolls.

Neon Knight
2007-08-26, 12:03 PM
Because that isn't the way things (used to) work in the D&D game (I'd say starting with 3.x and the onset of the comic book superhero PC archetype it's a weaker case to make).


"Min/maxing" isn't something that belongs in a game that purports to be for "cooperative storytelling;" it's something that belongs in a fantasy card-trading game or a computer game. Play a cRPG or a MMORPG if all you want is to optimize your dice rolls.

On the other hand, if 3.x is any indication, you'll have your wish soon enough; just next year even, when 4e comes out and fighters resemble melee-sorcerers more than non-magic-users, and every class is distilled into a homogenized lump of plusses to be applied to dice rolls.

If all you cared about was cooperative story telling, then why are you even bothering with mechanics? Shouldn't you be in freeform?

Hm? Unless, of course, the game has priorities in addition to cooperative story telling.

Even if this weren't the case, tradition is not a good enough reason to do something. Blind adherence to the past is such folly that only the most die hard of lawfuls would do so.

If my character is supposed to be a glorious strategist, a true general of heaven who is a brilliant philosopher as well as a master of tactics, should he not recognize certain fundamental truths about the world? Should he not realize that the foe on his knees is a lesser threat than the disarmed foe still standing? Should he not realize that one great weapon does more than two smaller ones?

DND has always been about combat. It evolved from a tactical wargame. Stop deluding yourself. The roleplay is something the players add. It is not inherent in the system.

In fact, roleplay isn't inherent to any system. I can play nWod or oWod as a Monty Haul styled kill fest, ignoring any published fluff.

You, sir, have greatly offended me. I am for optimization. But I am not against roleplay. No, sir, I love roleplay. And I find these two loves mix together sublimely. They do not hamper or affect one another in the slightest way.

Do soldiers in real life run around shooting from the hip? No, they do not. They deliberately make choices that will minimize their exposure to the enemy while maximizing their chances to hit him. Why should medieval warriors be any different?

You make the audacious and ridiculous claim that effectively states that by choosing to make my character mechanically effective, I am playing DnD wrong.

Droodle
2007-08-26, 01:13 PM
Approximate balance would still be a gigantic step up from 3.x, would it not?

No.Care to elaborate? As best I can tell you are either arguing that the classes in 3rd edition are already balanced or that the game would somehow be broken if a level 20 fighter were actually dangerous to a level 10 wizard. Either argument seems more than a little ridiculous without some serious elaboration.

Journey
2007-08-26, 02:19 PM
If all you cared about was cooperative story telling, then why are you even bothering with mechanics? Shouldn't you be in freeform?Look, it is a man of straw; quick, kill it!


Hm? Unless, of course, the game has priorities in addition to cooperative story telling.One might, on a casual review of the last few posts, even have noted a certain poster (me) stating just this very thing.


DND has always been about combat. It evolved from a tactical wargame. Stop deluding yourself. The roleplay is something the players add. It is not inherent in the system.I believe I've noted, twice now, that D&D's origin is as a tactical medieval combat game. In fact, I think I even implied as much in my very first post. Perhaps you should consider the benefits of more reading and having less exaggerated sensitivity to take umbrage so easily.

As for the role-play, it isn't something inherent in a system, just like combat isn't. However, a system either supports or hinders various things. Rules-heavy, crunchy systems generally do not support role-playing as much as rules-light, non-crunchy systems (although I'm sure exceptions to each can be found).

D&D has not always been "about combat." It hasn't always been "about cooperative role-playing," either. For a couple of sweet decades, it was about both.

And for the record, I do not think that optimizing is the wrong way to play D&D 3.x. In fact that's what the system is designed to facilitate.

IonizedChicken
2007-08-26, 02:23 PM
I've always thought the need for interclass balance to be something fundamental that was unanimously agreed upon. This thread has honestly surprised me to some degree.

While many fantasy stories/worlds portray magic and spell-casting as something that is inherently superior to plain combat, such an inequality is not suitable for a game; since it is a given that some would wish to play classes which specialize in weaponry rather than in magic* (or in both) and they too, must have their roles. These roles should be as great as those given to the other classes (or else playing them would be rather difficult and boring -- perhaps even embarrassing).

*for the sake of variety or the admiration of a particular character concept.

On the subject of character optimization (which concerns this issue since a good optimizer can create powerful characters even with a balanced set of classes), I don't view that as a real problem. Optimization is directly influenced by the effort a player puts into his character -- even if a player doesn't know how to optimize it's certainly easy to learn just by reading books, online discussion, the structure of various builds, and simple trial-and-error.
And, yes, I feel that if a player puts less effort into his character it's very much alright that his character will be somewhat less powerful/useful than some other, optimized character (I'm not talking about game-breaking optimization here, mind you; there are limits and I'm certain everyone is aware of them).

Neon Knight
2007-08-26, 04:03 PM
As for the role-play, it isn't something inherent in a system, just like combat isn't. However, a system either supports or hinders various things. Rules-heavy, crunchy systems generally do not support role-playing as much as rules-light, non-crunchy systems (although I'm sure exceptions to each can be found).

D&D has not always been "about combat." It hasn't always been "about cooperative role-playing," either. For a couple of sweet decades, it was about both.

And for the record, I do not think that optimizing is the wrong way to play D&D 3.x. In fact that's what the system is designed to facilitate.

I disagree with the statement that rule light system support roleplay better; a group of players will roleplay or they will not. The system does not affect the outcome.

When you play a rules light system, however, you remember the roleplay more than you would in a heavy system. Why? Because events occur in heavy system that are also memorable. A good dice roll, an excellent tactical decision.

Your memory tricks you into thinking that there was more or better roleplaying in the rules light system, but in fact they were equal.

This is what my RP experience has generally taught me, and what common sense dictates. A munchkin does not become an actor because there are less rules to break.

You seem to think that 3.X is not meant for cooperative storytelling, which makes this comment seem out of place.


"Min/maxing" isn't something that belongs in a game that purports to be for "cooperative storytelling;" it's something that belongs in a fantasy card-trading game or a computer game. Play a cRPG or a MMORPG if all you want is to optimize your dice rolls.

Why make this comment if you believe that 3.X isn't designed for "cooperative storytelling"?

Come to think of it, how do you design something for cooperative storytelling?

Winterwind
2007-08-26, 04:50 PM
I disagree with the statement that rule light system support roleplay better; a group of players will roleplay or they will not. The system does not affect the outcome.And you're right about it, too. It's the other way around: While people in for the roleplaying can play in almost any system just as well (as long as the system doesn't restrict their choices for the characters they want to play, which is unrelated to how rule-light or -heavy a system is, though), people who are in for the combat simulation (or whatever it is the rules do) alone will likely prefer the rule heavy system. That's why people tend to make the (faulty) opposite conclusion.

On the other hand, the more space is "wasted" on rules, the less remains for background and atmosphere. While this is not quite a direct fault of the system itself, it leads to rule-heavy systems often having books which people preferring roleplaying to rules consider inferior.
At least, that's my experience.

Also, having much rules about combat (for example) suggests that the game is primarily about combat, not about roleplaying. It's merely a suggestion, not a sign what the game truly is about (that's up to the group anyways), but also leads to many people linking "rules heavy" with "no focus on roleplaying".

So, while I agree that "rules light/heavy" doesn't have anything to do with how much the game is actually suited for which playstyle, there are good reasons why many people associate "rules light/roleplaying" and "rules heavy/rollplaying".


Come to think of it, how do you design something for cooperative storytelling?That's a matter of personal taste, I guess; personally, I would consider a roleplaying game where more space in the books is spent on getting the reader in touch with the general feeling of the world the game is going to take place in instead of combat options to be designed for storytelling rather than, say, level grinding.


Generally, I consider balance to be of uttermost importance - using my definition of balance, which goes "every character can get time in the spotlight and is not overshadowed by other characters beyond the degree said character's player wants them to.". Which is, however, more about being a protagonist in a story, not so much about who can kill more.
And so far, I haven't encountered a system yet, which prevented a player from playing the character (s)he wanted to and simultaneously prevented the DM from making said character a proper protagonist who had as much impact on the story as intended. Maybe D&D would accomplish this; I wouldn't know.

Bosh
2007-08-27, 02:29 AM
Well if you have magic in an RPG you have to choose between:
1. Toned-down magic in which magic is emphatically NOT able to "make the rules of physics sit down and shut up." This is what I generally prefer.
2. Have all the PCs be mages (for example M:tA).
3. Have the non-magical PCs be able to do super human stunts in order to let them keep up with the casters.
4. Have certain players be able to do super human stunts and some not. This results in having the game system tell people "If you don't want to play a caster you've either got to pray that the caster player is crappy at tactics, purposefully gimps himself, the DM REALLY loves anti-magic fields, or min-max the hell out of your character or you're going to wind up playing a Jimmy Olsen to his Superman."

Historically D&D has been 4. What has kept casters from ruining a lot of campaigns is bad caster tactics (especially with no internet to spread information, figuring out how to play a tactically-efficient caster is HARD, which I why I think that these problems get noticed a lot more in 2.5 than in earlier editions). My own personal preference would be 1. D&D is going for 3. Oh well, I'd take 3 over 2 & 4 in a heartbeat.

Also I think that a lot of people are assuming that RPGing is something that takes place outside of the rules. I disagree, I think that a lot of great Roleplaying takes place by using the rules, not saying that some people are roleplayers and some people aren't and that the rules are irrelevant. Some systems like Fate or Dogs in the Vinyard incorporate things that encourage RPing into the rules and have RPing be as much part of the rules as combat. I definatley don't see anything that is especially conducive to RPing about old edition D&D. I'd love to play a few Rules Cyclopedia adventures for nostalgia value, but 1st Edition D&D was as hack and slash as it came...

Daimbert
2007-08-27, 08:10 AM
/boggle

Class balance was an issue in earlier mmo's far before WoW was released ... just as an easy example: in EQ it was an issue both pre-kunark, and especially post kunark when the level cap was raised.

I meant that class balance as "everyone has to be able to do the same amount of damage in different ways" wasn't the notion of class balance that people griped about in MMORPGs before WoW and the more "soloable" games. Before that, it was more about "usefulness in a party" and if you'd ever take a member of that class in your party to do something. I can't speak for EQ personally, but note that in DAoC, CoH, and even the FF games when people complained about a class being "gimped" it was mainly about the fact that it didn't have a role in the party -- every other class could do anything that class could do at least almost as well.

Jayabalard
2007-08-27, 08:35 AM
Allow me to rephrase the question. The Wizard can violate reality to a stunning degree via his intellect. Why can not the fighter violate reality to the same degree via his great strength, his impeccable honor, his unbeatable skill, or his undying valor?Because the wizard uses magic, and the fighter does not.


No, but any weakness in a foe must be carefully handled. A troll who faces no fire or acid is formidable, and the PCs will have to expend much of their resources or resort to cunning to incapacitate it. But if these are available to PCs, a troll becomes an unmemorable encounter. Again, what's your point? I've not claimed otherwise.


And why not? For example, let us suppose the BBEG in question is a dragon or a mindflayer. These are creatures of unbelievable and unparalleled intelligence. Their thought processes must surely be vastly beyond ours. It makes sense that creatures of such great intellect and insight would minimize their weaknesses while maximizing their potential.Vastly beyond ours does mean "no weaknesses"


Oh, how bloody original of you. Achilles is turning in his grave, by the way.

Is it so presumptuous to assume that a villain is defeat able without the players having to resort to some cheesy win button, like a heel?

Defeating a villain, not because you happened to know his dread secret and one weakness, but because you used superior strategy, winning not because you threw acid in his face while playing chess but just by beating him at his own game...

That is the height of glorious achievement.Are you familiar with the term "straw man"? It's a type of logical fallacy where someone presents their opponent's argument as something other than what it is in order to make it easier to "defeat" in a debate.

A good example of a straw man argument would be something like:
person 1: arguing that villains with weaknesses or flaws are more engaging than ones without any weaknesses.

person 2: presents that argument as if person 1 had claimed that villians need to have "some cheesy win button, like [Achilles] heel?"

To recap my earlier statements: Villains that you defeat by taking advantage of your strengths and capitalizing on your enemies' weaknesses (generally called "strategy") more engaging than ones where you overcome them by being more powerful than them.


Care to elaborate? As best I can tell you are either arguing that the classes in 3rd edition are already balanced or that the game would somehow be broken if a level 20 fighter were actually dangerous to a level 10 wizard. Either argument seems more than a little ridiculous without some serious elaboration.If you'll look back on the first page, you'll note that I stated that class balance does not make the game better, so adding it is not a step forward.


Well if you have magic in an RPG you have to choose between:
1. Toned-down magic in which magic is emphatically NOT able to "make the rules of physics sit down and shut up." This is what I generally prefer.
2. Have all the PCs be mages (for example M:tA).
3. Have the non-magical PCs be able to do super human stunts in order to let them keep up with the casters.
4. Have certain players be able to do super human stunts and some not. This results in having the game system tell people "If you don't want to play a caster you've either got to pray that the caster player is crappy at tactics, purposefully gimps himself, the DM REALLY loves anti-magic fields, or min-max the hell out of your character or you're going to wind up playing a Jimmy Olsen to his Superman."

There are other systems that do 1, 2 and 3 pretty well; when I play D&D it's specifically because I'm looking for 4. When I want to play a game based on 1, 2, or 3, I'll play one of those systems that do it well.

Just because I often prefer #1 doesn't mean that I want D&D to be like that.


I meant that class balance as "everyone has to be able to do the same amount of damage in different ways" wasn't the notion of class balance that people griped about in MMORPGs before WoW and the more "soloable" games. Before that, it was more about "usefulness in a party" and if you'd ever take a member of that class in your party to do something. I can't speak for EQ personally, but note that in DAoC, CoH, and even the FF games when people complained about a class being "gimped" it was mainly about the fact that it didn't have a role in the party -- every other class could do anything that class could do at least almost as well.No, that was definitely an issue in EQ long before wow was released.

Comparisons on soloability and DPS were a concern even before Kunark was released (hence the necro pet weapon delay nerf), and healing parity was addressed all the way from kunark through PoP. Taking balance was addressed in luclin/PoP, then again after Gates release

Tormsskull
2007-08-27, 08:56 AM
I disagree with the statement that rule light system support roleplay better; a group of players will roleplay or they will not. The system does not affect the outcome.


I think it all depends on how you interpret the rules. If I describe my fighter character in combat as such "I kick the chair out of my way, jump atop the table, then jump over the orc while trying to hit him in the top of his head" and the DM says "Ok, first, make a touch attack against the chair to see if you moved the chair. Then make a jump check to see if you got on top of the table. Ok, then, make another jump check to see if you get high enough to be able to spear the orc in the top of his head. Then make an attack roll."

Most people would probably just decide to move their mini around the table and attack. But in a rules light system the DM can say to the exact same situation "Ok, make an attack roll."

A lot of people (me included) read the rules, and then make assumptions. If there is a skill called "Jump" in a game, and your character had no ability with it (no ranks in Jump), then it is assumed you are not particularly skilled in Jumping. In a rules-light game there probably won't be a Jump skill, as that's pretty specific. A rule-light game gives the DM and players the freedom to do what they want with less restrictions on their play.

The reason a lot of people think that rules-light is better for roleplay is that they don't have to consult books everytime they attempt to do anything. I think generally, though not always, freedom provides for more roleplaying opportunities.



Your memory tricks you into thinking that there was more or better roleplaying in the rules light system, but in fact they were equal.

This is what my RP experience has generally taught me, and what common sense dictates. A munchkin does not become an actor because there are less rules to break.


That's pretty presumptious, especially for someone who is trying to label the other poster as attacking his stance on roleplay v optimization.



Generally, I consider balance to be of uttermost importance - using my definition of balance, which goes "every character can get time in the spotlight and is not overshadowed by other characters beyond the degree said character's player wants them to.".


But your definition of balance would not suffice for a lot of players, because to them balance means "I can be as effective in combat as other characters of similiar power levels."

Indon
2007-08-27, 08:57 AM
I'll bring in another point on this:

Say you want class balance. Well, you can have it in 3.x; just introduce only those classes who are balanced with each other. Introduce Binders and Warmages as Wizards; Favored Souls as Clerics; use the Shapeshifting variant for Druids. Don't allow Artificers or Archivists (I think they're the ones I'm thinking of).

OR, introduce the Swordsage instead of the Monk. Introduce the Warblade instead of the Fighter, and the Crusader instead of the Paladin. Give the Barbarian a discipline or two.

Those are two different ways you have availible to 'balance' the classes, right now. Both make the game into wildly different experiences, and that's a good thing. What's more, it ain't all that hard! And yet it still leaves those who want otherwise a choice.

That's the benefit to class diversity holding a place over class balance. If you have multiple classes spanning many different power levels, you can still have balance... just pick a level of power and allow classes from that. If you have a series of classes of the same level of effectiveness, you can't choose otherwise. You would have to modify the system (by artificially making class diversity) to the point where you're probably just better off picking a better system for your needs.

So, my point in short: Balancing diverse classes is easy, a matter of culling. Diversifying balanced classes requires the creation of _entirely new sets of classes_, and you're better off not playing the system.

Jayabalard
2007-08-27, 09:10 AM
Generally, I consider balance to be of uttermost importance - using my definition of balance, which goes "every character can get time in the spotlight and is not overshadowed by other characters beyond the degree said character's player wants them to.".
But your definition of balance would not suffice for a lot of players, because to them balance means "I can be as effective in combat as other characters of similiar power levels."I agree; people should stick to calling that usefulness or something similar rather than clouding up the term "balance"

Sir Giacomo
2007-08-27, 09:30 AM
Actually, imo the core rules are balanced quite well (although I understand many of the issues people have with it, say the great versatility of the druid who can easily fulfill many party roles and which may make it less desirable at first glance to play a fighter or even a cleric as divine caster).

The problem becomes big only once you add all the other companion books to your game. Here, the designers likely sacrificed overall balance for great new ideas for campaigns. However, for the DM, this makes it difficult to gauge whether he could admit into his campaign, say, a swordsage specialising in unarmed combat and a monk from the core rules at the same time. Some classes like the Red Wizards of Thay are even fairly campaign-specific and may not be applicable for all campaigns.

The core rules, though, are meant to provide some first generic orientation with which you already can basically portray everything you need for a fantasy campaign. The good idea for balancing magic with mundane (extraordinary) abilities that is introduced in DD3 and DD3.5 is that magic only very rarely lasts longer than 10mins/level, while most of the extraordinary abilities are permanent and cannot be dispelled.
If one as a DM remembers this strong distinction, it should be fairly easy to provide challenging games for everyone, regardless of whether they want to play eventually an earth-shakingly powerful mage or the best swordsman there is. Both will be able to shine.

- Giacomo

Artemician
2007-08-27, 09:30 AM
I'll bring in another point on this:

<If ye wants class balance, ye only play classes that are balanced against each other

Problemo here. What if one play wants to play a twinked-out Batman Wizard, while the other doesn't want to deal with the Initiating system and wants to play a Fighter?

What if one player wants to play a Druid, while the other wants to play a Swashbuckler-type character? Not a Swordsage, a proper swashbuckler of the high seas, who roams around half-drunk and most certainly doesn't use complicated Martial maneuvers.

Or heck, one player's playing a Charge-crazy Barbarian, and the other wants to play a TWF ranger. Then, you have a problem. There are some things tied to classes.. that cannot be removed without having to forcibly change a whole buttload of rules.

Journey
2007-08-27, 09:49 AM
There are other systems that do 1, 2 and 3 pretty well; when I play D&D it's specifically because I'm looking for 4. When I want to play a game based on 1, 2, or 3, I'll play one of those systems that do it well.

Just because I often prefer #1 doesn't mean that I want D&D to be like that.

Actually, my alternative to number 4 is "Have a system where the different characters' available abilities are determined by what fits within the larger narrative in order to present a world with a high degree of verisimilitude, and trust that the 'cooperative' part of the game isn't going to be ignored in favor of competition as though there were something to win."

D&D has always been playable in this way, even with 3/3.5e. The difference is that in 3.x instead of adding or paring here and there to round the system out, one must take a meat cleaver to it and hack it into a semblance of its former self.

Jayabalard
2007-08-27, 10:08 AM
Problemo here. What if one play wants to play a twinked-out Batman Wizard, while the other doesn't want to deal with the Initiating system and wants to play a Fighter?If one character wants to be powerful, and the other explicitly doesn't want to be powerful, you let them play them. Why force someone to play a complicated character when what they want is the simple fighter?


What if one player wants to play a Druid, while the other wants to play a Swashbuckler-type character? Not a Swordsage, a proper swashbuckler of the high seas, who roams around half-drunk and most certainly doesn't use complicated Martial maneuvers.Obviously a druid who can call on the fury of nature is going to be more effective than a half drunk sailor who only the most basic grasp of fighting (ie, no martial maneuvers). If that's what the respective players want, why would anyone oppose that?


Or heck, one player's playing a Charge-crazy Barbarian, and the other wants to play a TWF ranger. Then, you have a problem. There are some things tied to classes.. that cannot be removed without having to forcibly change a whole buttload of rules.What exactly needs to be changed? I don't see where the requirement to change them comes from... if people want to play that way, let them.


You thinks.Yes... I do. That's how you discuss something. One person posts what they think about a particular issue (villains should be as optimal as possible, claiming that to be realistic) and if someone thinks different they post how they think differently (villains with weakness are more engaging, and more realistic than optimal villains with no weaknesses).

In this particular case, I was correcting him on his interpretation of my claims, since he and another poster were misrepresenting my claims (straw man fallacy).


You sez.Yes... I did... he did after all ask me, so I answered.


You wants.

It's all about you, isn't it?/boggle.

We are after all discussing opinions here, with the focus at least partially being on what people want out of 4th edition. Therefore I present my opinions as my opinions, as opposed to some other posters presenting their opinions as if they were not opinions.

As for posting about me and what I thing, say and want... why would I post other people opinions instead of my own?

Bosh
2007-08-27, 10:18 AM
Actually, my alternative to number 4 is "Have a system where the different characters' available abilities are determined by what fits within the larger narrative in order to present a world with a high degree of verisimilitude, and trust that the 'cooperative' part of the game isn't going to be ignored in favor of competition as though there were something to win."

D&D has always been playable in this way, even with 3/3.5e. The difference is that in 3.x instead of adding or paring here and there to round the system out, one must take a meat cleaver to it and hack it into a semblance of its former self.

So you're saying that strict class balance isn't important because D&D is a cooperatie game? I don't see how that makes any sense. Balance is just as important in cooperative games as competitive games, since nothing kills the spirit of cooperation like class X's abilities making class Y's abilities obsolete for group purposes (unless you're a member of the small minority that doesn't mind playing Jimmy Olsen in a group of Supermen).

Also there's nothing wrong with a setting that includes a mix of massively powerful mages with mundane regular people (there's plenty of fantasy settings that do that). But just imagine playing a WotC campaign with Rand, Perrin and Mat as characters. It would get damn boring after a while. Perrin and Mat would spend most of the adventures scratching their asses as Rand fried everything, just about all they could contribute to the adventure would be repetitive complaining about women. There's nothing that I can imagine that would destroy teamwork faster than having people relegated to the role of sidekicks if they don't specifically choose to do so.

Tormsskull
2007-08-27, 10:45 AM
{Scrubbed}

Artemician
2007-08-27, 10:47 AM
If one character wants to be powerful, and the other explicitly doesn't want to be powerful, you let them play them. Why force someone to play a complicated character when what they want is the simple fighter?

Obviously a druid who can call on the fury of nature is going to be more effective than a half drunk sailor who only the most basic grasp of fighting (ie, no martial maneuvers). If that's what the respective players want, why would anyone oppose that?

What exactly needs to be changed? I don't see where the requirement to change them comes from... if people want to play that way, let them.

That's where our points of view diverge. I, and I believe I speak for a fair number of people who post on this thread, want a game where you can play all kinds of concepts, where you can play a Wizard and a Fighter without the Fighter feeling horribly outclassed. We want a game where you can have a fun character to play, without having to learn new rules, and play new classes, just to keep up with the power curve of other classes.

As to why you would feel concerned if one guy if playing a Druid, while the other is playing a Swashbuckler. Simple. Because it's going to be hard for the Swashbuckler guy to have fun. He acrobatizes around the battlefield, and basically just bounces around like a lawn ornament while the Druid defeats the encounters. That's not fun at all. If you're playing a game in which combat has a minor role, you can have fun in other ways, true. But if you're playing a combat-heavy game, which some people do, that's the majority of the game in which you're not having fun. And that is a problem.

Jayabalard
2007-08-27, 10:54 AM
class X's abilities making class Y's abilities obsolete for group purposes Whether a character obsoletes another is not dependent on whether the classes are balanced or not.


(unless you're a member of the small minority that doesn't mind playing Jimmy Olsen in a group of Supermen).As funny as this comparison is, it's a little disingenuous of you to claim that it actually models the power level of a level 20 fighter. After all, Jimmy Olsen cannot actually stop the bad guys, while a 20 fighter can (even if the 20 wizard is better at it)

Winterwind
2007-08-27, 11:00 AM
But your definition of balance would not suffice for a lot of players, because to them balance means "I can be as effective in combat as other characters of similiar power levels."Sure, which is why I emphasised that these are merely my personal feelings about this matter. And to me, combat is not this important. The number of combat situations in our games is correlated with how much the characters are designed for combat, so that if there are warriors in the group they get the combat situations they obviously wanted there characters to shine in, whereas non-combatants face challenges more fitting for them. Therefore, any character design goes, since it will get the opportunities to stand in the spotlight. And even with the most combat-focussed group we rarely get more than one fight per session. Usually, it's significantly less.

Jayabalard
2007-08-27, 11:08 AM
That's where our points of view diverge. I, and I believe I speak for a fair number of people who post on this thread, want a game where you can play all kinds of concepts, where you can play a Wizard and a Fighter without the Fighter feeling horribly outclassed. We want a game where you can have a fun character to play, without having to learn new rules, and play new classes, just to keep up with the power curve of other classes.Those games exist; D&D is not one of them. If that's actually what you want, I suggest that you play one of them rather than D&D.


As to why you would feel concerned if one guy if playing a Druid, while the other is playing a Swashbuckler. Simple. Because it's going to be hard for the Swashbuckler guy to have fun. He acrobatizes around the battlefield, and basically just bounces around like a lawn ornament while the Druid defeats the encounters. That's not fun at all. If you're playing an combat-light game, it won't be as major a problem. But if you're playing a combat-heavy game, which a lot of people do, it is going to be a big problem.Since the swashbuckler wanted to have mediocre effectiveness (half drunk, no martial maneuvers) he should be allowed to play that way... Since that's what he wanted to play, I fail to see how it's going to be hard for him to have fun since he gets to play what he wants to play.

Or are you claiming that his fun is determined by some numbers on someone else's character sheet?


I'm not so much insinuating that you're wrong for stating your own opinion. Rather, I'm insinuating that you're simply posting your own opinion over and over again, without considering other's views, or providing and justification for your own opinion.I've disagreed with specific parts of people's posts, and have given specific reasons for those disagreements. In general, most of my debate has been based on the false absolutes and exaggerations that seem to crop up so much on this forum.


Oh, and Tormskull? That was very insulting. Very.I thought it was kind of spot on; if you don't want to come across like that, try and be a little more mature with the way that you post.

Daimbert
2007-08-27, 11:37 AM
Whether a character obsoletes another is not dependent on whether the classes are balanced or not.

If the classes are balanced, then IN GENERAL one character won't obsolete another based on their CLASS (unless the classes are the same "type" of class) because balanced classes mean that every class (or at least class "type") has unique skills that are useful in various situations.

For example, while a balanced Monk class may obsolete a balanced Fighter class (both are melee fighters, but the Monk is based on not getting hit and the Fighter on mitigating damage and surviving with high hit points ... but if most high level creatures add an effect on a successful attack, the Monk is a better melee class at that point since they won't even have to resist the effects) having one of a melee class is still useful since they are useful in most circumstances and incredibly useful in other circumstances.

It's only a hybrid class like a druid (say) that can take over other roles with the skills they can learn that risks obsoleting other classes by their class. If you don't make those abilities not as good as "the real thing", no one will ever play the pure melee class over the hybrid. Thus, balancing is required, in all senses of the word ...


As funny as this comparison is, it's a little disingenuous of you to claim that it actually models the power level of a level 20 fighter. After all, Jimmy Olsen cannot actually stop the bad guys, while a 20 fighter can (even if the 20 wizard is better at it)

But if the wizard can do it faster and easier than having the fighter get involved, it's the same sort of situation: there's no point in the fighter trying to do anything since the wizard has all the power to handle it on their own.

Basically, it's what happens when Superman and Jimmy run into some street thugs. Jimmy can stop them, but he might get hurt and they might get away. Superman can do it quickly with no risk. Why would Jimmy attack unless he thought he had something to prove?

Rex Blunder
2007-08-27, 11:46 AM
Basically, it's what happens when Superman and Jimmy run into some street thugs. Jimmy can stop them, but he might get hurt and they might get away. Superman can do it quickly with no risk. Why would Jimmy attack unless he thought he had something to prove?

That's a problem with bad DMing. Any DM worth his salt would provide encounters in which Jimmy could shine, for instance a "What Number is Jimmy Olson Thinking Of" game or a beauty contest judged by Jimmy Olson's mom. :smalltongue:

Indon
2007-08-27, 12:24 PM
Problemo here. What if one play wants to play a twinked-out Batman Wizard, while the other doesn't want to deal with the Initiating system and wants to play a Fighter?

What if one player wants to play a Druid, while the other wants to play a Swashbuckler-type character? Not a Swordsage, a proper swashbuckler of the high seas, who roams around half-drunk and most certainly doesn't use complicated Martial maneuvers.

Or heck, one player's playing a Charge-crazy Barbarian, and the other wants to play a TWF ranger. Then, you have a problem. There are some things tied to classes.. that cannot be removed without having to forcibly change a whole buttload of rules.


What if one player wants to play a Blaster Wizard, and the other wants to play a Batman Wizard?

What if one player wants to play a sword-and-board fighter using TWF Shield Bashes, and the other player wants to play a Shock Trooper fighter using a 2-hander?

What if one player wants to play a UMD rogue based around Eternal Wands of Ray of Frost, and the other player wants to make a Rogue/Ranger who can TWF-sneak attack undead and elementals?

The scenarios you pose are problems with players, and are not at all dependent on class features; the mere capability of optimization for any class causes the possibility of players who want to play at different levels of optimization. 'Class balance' doesn't remotely fix that problem.

Edit: And if you'd go looking at the covers for the Jimmy Olsen comic book, it's pretty clear the dude had some pretty wacky adventures himself. I think he's killed Superman like 6 times, at least.

Jayabalard
2007-08-27, 01:03 PM
But if the wizard can do it faster and easier than having the fighter get involved, it's the same sort of situation: there's no point in the fighter trying to do anything since the wizard has all the power to handle it on their own.Nope; "Better than" is not the same thing as "obsoletes". nor is "Not as good as" the same thing as "useless".

Nor does being less useful in a situation mean that there's no point in trying to do anything.

Sure, it's great Rhetoric, but it's is meaningless.

If you'd stick the more factual, and less absolute terms

Morty
2007-08-27, 01:11 PM
Nope; "Better than" is not the same thing as "obsoletes". nor is "Not as good as" the same thing as "useless".

Nor does being less useful in a situation mean that there's no point in trying to do anything.


Great, but the facts are, when fighting spellcasting foes, non-spellcasters can't often do a single thing.

Jayabalard
2007-08-27, 01:22 PM
That sounds like it's the result of either tactical error on the part of the players or poor encounter design on the part of the GM.

Morty
2007-08-27, 01:24 PM
That sounds like it's the result of either tactical error on the part of the players or poor encounter design on the part of the GM.

Rather the fact that casters have a lot of ways to protect themselves from non-casters, while non-casters tend not to have any reliable way to protect themselves from casters. Wizard is flying teleporting around trapping fighter in battlefield control spells or hitting him with will-based save-or-dies. Fighter can't do much.
And besides, am I really the only one here who thinks that it's quite possible to design the system so that fighters can reliably take off wizards?

Daimbert
2007-08-27, 01:32 PM
That's a problem with bad DMing. Any DM worth his salt would provide encounters in which Jimmy could shine, for instance a "What Number is Jimmy Olson Thinking Of" game or a beauty contest judged by Jimmy Olson's mom. :smalltongue:

Hmmm ... I agree with you and yet your joke seems to precisely embody what people think is the problem here:

1) I agree that a good DM should ensure that the encounters play off everyone's strengths and weaknesses at times to ensure that everyone gets a chance to be useful in the campaign.

2) That doesn't work if there's one class that can do everything (interesting) better than everyone else can [grin].

Jayabalard
2007-08-27, 01:40 PM
And besides, am I really the only one here who thinks that it's quite possible to design the system so that fighters can reliably take off wizards?I'm sure that it can be done.

I just disagree that that is a desirable thing. Fighters should NOT be able to reliably take out wizards.

Morty
2007-08-27, 01:47 PM
I just disagree that that is a desirable thing. Fighters should NOT be able to reliably take out wizards.

Why? Why in the world where magic is quite a common thing and wizards are quite numerous -which means they are just normal people and magic isn't something all that mysterious and unknown- shouldn't a skilled warrior be able to take out a fragile guy in pointy hat?

Daimbert
2007-08-27, 01:50 PM
Nope; "Better than" is not the same thing as "obsoletes".

I beg to differ; it seems to be PRECISELY the same thing as obsoletes.

Take, say, a rogue with pick lock and a wizard with an unlimited use of Knock, which can unlock locks at a higher degree of difficulty with a lower failure rate. The wizard's ability to unlock doors is better than the rogues ... so why would you ever get the rogue to try to unlock doors? The rogue's lock picking is OBSOLETE; the party has much better methods for doing that than his ability.


nor is "Not as good as" the same thing as "useless".

I was not making that an absolute. But imagine this:

DM: "You are attacked by 20 goblins."

Fighter: "I can charge them, use Great Cleave to take out 5 - 10 of them, spin, and use other techniques to finish them off! Should get them all in about 3 rounds."

Wizard: "I can cast Fireball, which may kill all of them. Anything else I can get with Magic Missile. Could be 1 round, 2 tops. Unless you'd like to mop up any survivors?"

Do you see how the Fighter may feel somewhat useless? Sure, the Fighter can KILL all of them, but might take a wound and will take longer to do so. So why not simply have the Wizard blast them? Why would the Fighter even BOTHER to engage? Especially if he might stop the Wizard from blasting with impunity?

And yes, as I've recently said it is indeed up to the DM to set encounters appropriately. But in order for the DM to be able to do so, the classes have to be at least minimally balanced so that the Fighter can do things that the Wizard can't.


Nor does being less useful in a situation mean that there's no point in trying to do anything.

Sure, it's great Rhetoric, but it's is meaningless.

NOW who's creating strawmen?

I said this: "But if the wizard can do it faster and easier than having the fighter get involved, it's the same sort of situation: there's no point in the fighter trying to do anything since the wizard has all the power to handle it on their own."

That sentence does not translate to a very minor case of being "less useful", as you imply it does.


If you'd stick the more factual, and less absolute terms

You are the one who is reading absolutes into statements that do not include them.

pypeters
2007-08-27, 01:54 PM
No on class balance.

Balancing classes is so PC that it makes me choke. Each class has its position in life and just because a fighter feels left out just means the player and DM are doing a poor job.

Daimbert
2007-08-27, 01:55 PM
I'm sure that it can be done.

I just disagree that that is a desirable thing. Fighters should NOT be able to reliably take out wizards.

I think I have to agree with you on this one: Fighters (of the same or equivalent levels) should not be able to reliably take out wizards.

But the converse should also be true: Wizards should not be able to take out same level fighters reliably either. It should depend on the spells/equipment/tactics used and possessed by each combatant.

And that's what class balance should strive to at least START to provide.

Daimbert
2007-08-27, 02:06 PM
No on class balance.

Balancing classes is so PC that it makes me choke. Each class has its position in life and just because a fighter feels left out just means the player and DM are doing a poor job.

My interpretation of class balance is indeed that every class has to have its position and life and a purpose for being in a party. Now, take your basic Fighter class: if it isn't even needed (and I'm not saying that this is the case, mind you; just tossing out a hypothetical) to keep melee foes away from the squishy casters in combat, what's it good for?

Having that role IS a notion of class balance; it gives the Fighter an important role in the party to at least cover up for a weakness of the Wizard.

Tormsskull
2007-08-27, 02:07 PM
I beg to differ; it seems to be PRECISELY the same thing as obsoletes.


No, not really. Obsolete would only occur if one class could do the exact same thing as the other class, without expending anything above, beyond, or different than the original class must expend in order to obtain the same result.



Take, say, a rogue with pick lock and a wizard with an unlimited use of Knock, which can unlock locks at a higher degree of difficulty with a lower failure rate. The wizard's ability to unlock doors is better than the rogues ... so why would you ever get the rogue to try to unlock doors? The rogue's lock picking is OBSOLETE; the party has much better methods for doing that than his ability.


Well, several reasons:


How did the wizard get unlimited uses of "Knock"? What else could he have gotten instead. I.E. what is the opportunity cost of the wizard getting unlimited uses of "Knock"?
IIRC Knock has a verbal component, while Open Lock the skill does not. Will there ever be a time when it might be needed for the group to open a locked door/chest quietly?
Are there any doors that cannot be affected by the spell "Knock" but could be affected by the "Open Lock" skill?


So while you may put forth that there are relatively few times when a rogue's Open Lock ability may be useful, it is categorically incorrect to use the word "obsolete" when comparing the Open Lock ability versus the Knock spell.



Do you see how the Fighter may feel somewhat useless? Sure, the Fighter can KILL all of them, but might take a wound and will take longer to do so. So why not simply have the Wizard blast them? Why would the Fighter even BOTHER to engage? Especially if he might stop the Wizard from blasting with impunity?


Could the Wizard's spell slot be put to better use elsewhere? Would the fighter killing the creatures without resorting to magic have any secondary benefits (could any creatures nearby sense when someone is using magic, and thus by physically killing them all the party doesn't alert such creatures).

Jayabalard
2007-08-27, 02:08 PM
I beg to differ; it seems to be PRECISELY the same thing as obsoletes.Nope, there'sa definite distinction.

Obsolete = "not useful"
"less useful" is not the same thing as "not useful"
"less useful" is not the same thing as "obsolete"


Take, say, a rogue with pick lock and a wizard with an unlimited use of Knock, which can unlock locks at a higher degree of difficulty with a lower failure rate. The wizard's ability to unlock doors is better than the rogues ... so why would you ever get the rogue to try to unlock doors? The rogue's lock picking is OBSOLETE; the party has much better methods for doing that than his ability.The rogues lock picking skill is a non-limited resource.


I was not making that an absolute. But imagine this:Others have. if you haven't, I'm sorry for having lumped you in with them.


DM: "You are attacked by 20 goblins."

Fighter: "I can charge them, use Great Cleave to take out 5 - 10 of them, spin, and use other techniques to finish them off! Should get them all in about 3 rounds."

Wizard: "I can cast Fireball, which may kill all of them. Anything else I can get with Magic Missile. Could be 1 round, 2 tops. Unless you'd like to mop up any survivors?"

Do you see how the Fighter may feel somewhat useless? Sure, the Fighter can KILL all of them, but might take a wound and will take longer to do so. So why not simply have the Wizard blast them? Why would the Fighter even BOTHER to engage? Especially if he might stop the Wizard from blasting with impunity?Depends on how much of the narcoleptic caster play style your GM allows... but that boils down to poor GMing.

this encounter isn't an appropriate challenge to the group... at most, it's a speedbump. Using multiple spell slots on it is a waste of resources.


NOW who's creating strawmen?

I said this: "But if the wizard can do it faster and easier than having the fighter get involved, it's the same sort of situation: there's no point in the fighter trying to do anything since the wizard has all the power to handle it on their own."

That sentence does not translate to a very minor case of being "less useful", as you imply it does.You actually; I've never claimed that "less useful" means a "very minor case" of anything. Less useful covers everything between "not Useful" and "as Useful"

as for my supposed straw man
You said: "But if the wizard can do it faster and easier than having the fighter get involved", which is claiming that the fighter is less useful than the wizard. You go on to assert that because of that, there's no point in the fighter trying to do anything.

That's tantamount to claiming that fighters are useless.

The fighter is not useless; I agree, the fighter is much less powerful than the wizard... but but I do not agree that this is a bad thing.


You are the one who is reading absolutes into statements that do not include them."there's no point in trying to do anything" is pretty absolute. So is "The rogue's lock picking is OBSOLETE"

Indon
2007-08-27, 02:33 PM
Great, but the facts are, when fighting spellcasting foes, non-spellcasters can't often do a single thing.

This again is a neccessity of the high-damage system of D&D; the fact is that a caster who is vulnerable to a properly-optimized charge-fighter is likely to die in a single round. So they must be invulnerable (Edit: Otherwise, we'd be all talking about how worthless Wizards are because a fighter can kill them with negligable effort). But this is a flaw more of the quick-battle paradigm behind 3.5 D&D, more than it is about class balance, as of course the Wizard can do the same thing with save-or-lose spells.

Or, to say more clearly, there is less neccessity for absolute defenses in a game with less potent offenses.

horseboy
2007-08-27, 03:00 PM
Why? Why in the world where magic is quite a common thing and wizards are quite numerous -which means they are just normal people and magic isn't something all that mysterious and unknown- shouldn't a skilled warrior be able to take out a fragile guy in pointy hat?

Exactly, while magic can tell physics to sit down and shut up, magic itself has laws just as binding. You'd think someone would be out there trying to learn the exploits of magic to keep from being subjugated by a matocricy. I know I'd be researching why arcane+metal don't mix. To the extent of finding a magic absorbing metal. Sadly that's about the extent of what you'd be able to do in D&D.

It's a shame that D&D, the herald of the RPG hobby, has to be so broken.

Daimbert
2007-08-27, 03:13 PM
No, not really. Obsolete would only occur if one class could do the exact same thing as the other class, without expending anything above, beyond, or different than the original class must expend in order to obtain the same result.

This seems to be a very broad meaning of "obsolete"; by that logic, automobiles didn't make horse and buggies obsolete, since horse and buggies don't, for example, use gasoline. Or that electric streetlights didn't make gas streetlights obsolete, since gas streetlights would still work in a power outage.

Basically, it seems to me -- and you can correct me if I'm wrong -- that your main argument seems to be here that if something COULD have a use -- even if that use is a VERY uncommon case -- a different thing or ability that is better than it in almost all other cases does not make it obsolete. But the examples I gave above seem -- to me at least -- to refute that.


Well, several reasons:


How did the wizard get unlimited uses of "Knock"? What else could he have gotten instead. I.E. what is the opportunity cost of the wizard getting unlimited uses of "Knock"?
IIRC Knock has a verbal component, while Open Lock the skill does not. Will there ever be a time when it might be needed for the group to open a locked door/chest quietly?
Are there any doors that cannot be affected by the spell "Knock" but could be affected by the "Open Lock" skill?


For the first case, assume that the wizard is happy with their build.

For the second and third cases, I think we can assume that they are rare and not normal circumstances.

So this would simply establish that a DM MAY find cases where the wizard's ability is detrimental and the rogue's ability is actually more useful. But is that enough to say that the wizard's ability doesn't make the rogue's ability obsolete? Well, it would depend on how common those cases generally are (or are supposed to be). Again, gas-powered streetlights work in power outages.


So while you may put forth that there are relatively few times when a rogue's Open Lock ability may be useful, it is categorically incorrect to use the word "obsolete" when comparing the Open Lock ability versus the Knock spell.

I disagree; the fact that there are relatviely few (in fact, quite rare) instances where the rogue's ability is actually useful is in fact what makes it correct to use the work obsolete versus MY description of the two abilities in my hypothetical example. I do not maintain that Knock is CURRENTLY making the rogue's ability obsolete, but that in my hypothetical it would.

(I could have flagged it as a hypothetical more clearly by not using actual abilities [grin]).

See, I maintain that something doesn't have to make something else totally useless to obsolete it, just such that in almost all expected cases it is the superior option and only in rare (and in the case of an RPG, almost certainly contrived [grin]) cases is the original ability more useful than the new one. Your argument here seems to be that you can only call something obsolete if the new thing makes it totally useless in all cases. But then I find it hard to imagine ANYTHING that ever became obsolete, as the examples I gave show.

In addition, it is interesting to turn this discussion back to the original topic and see that the examples you are giving seem to be cases of "class balance"; the wizard's abilities have specific weaknesses and limitiations that the rogue class does not, thus giving the rogue a specific role in the party. If that role is sufficiently common -- for example, people ward locks against magic spells as a regular habit -- then the rogue HAS a role, and so we have class balancing as I view it.



Could the Wizard's spell slot be put to better use elsewhere? Would the fighter killing the creatures without resorting to magic have any secondary benefits (could any creatures nearby sense when someone is using magic, and thus by physically killing them all the party doesn't alert such creatures).

And here, that notion of class balance comes right to the fore. The wizard is limited in his spells, and so wants to save them for cases where the Fighter cannot so easily mop up the mob. Magic can be detected at a distance that simple clashing of swords won't. Etc, etc. So if you make the fighter's abilities useful to cover the wizard's limitations, you are in effect doing some sort of class balancing. As long as that occurs in a large number of common cases, I'd say you would be well on your way to achieving class balance.

Note that I'm not really arguing that current D&D ISN'T balanced; just that class balance is indeed something to strive for.

Tormsskull
2007-08-27, 03:33 PM
Basically, it seems to me -- and you can correct me if I'm wrong -- that your main argument seems to be here that if something COULD have a use -- even if that use is a VERY uncommon case -- a different thing or ability that is better than it in almost all other cases does not make it obsolete. But the examples I gave above seem -- to me at least -- to refute that.


Hmm, to be honest I always understood obsolete to mean not used due to there not being a point to use it. But when I looked up its definition in a couple of different places it seems to be more generic, stating that obsolete means out of general use for example, so I retract my categorically wrong statement.



For the first case, assume that the wizard is happy with their build.

For the second and third cases, I think we can assume that they are rare and not normal circumstances.


If we assume all of the above is true, then I'd say in most cases the wizard is definitely stepping on rogue's toes. However, my games usually end up being lower-magic than default so I would never under estimate the ability of accomplishing goals with mundane means versus magical.



So this would simply establish that a DM MAY find cases where the wizard's ability is detrimental and the rogue's ability is actually more useful. But is that enough to say that the wizard's ability doesn't make the rogue's ability obsolete? Well, it would depend on how common those cases generally are (or are supposed to be). Again, gas-powered streetlights work in power outages.


Yeah, in a default campaign you're probably right. If a wizard buys a wand of knock for example, he always will have it available, and thus won't be wasting the slot on memorizing it, and can use it often enough that it would in most cases make the rogue's ability pretty pointless.



In addition, it is interesting to turn this discussion back to the original topic and see that the examples you are giving seem to be cases of "class balance"; the wizard's abilities have specific weaknesses and limitiations that the rogue class does not, thus giving the rogue a specific role in the party. If that role is sufficiently common -- for example, people ward locks against magic spells as a regular habit -- then the rogue HAS a role, and so we have class balancing as I view it.


I'm not opposed to class balance, and I think it is on every DM's shoulder to make each of the choices important/viable.



And here, that notion of class balance comes right to the fore. The wizard is limited in his spells, and so wants to save them for cases where the Fighter cannot so easily mop up the mob. Magic can be detected at a distance that simple clashing of swords won't. Etc, etc. So if you make the fighter's abilities useful to cover the wizard's limitations, you are in effect doing some sort of class balancing. As long as that occurs in a large number of common cases, I'd say you would be well on your way to achieving class balance.


I'd agree, and once again, I'm not against class balance, I just don't think it is of the utmost importance. Frankly I could play a sidekick character in a heavy RP campaign and have a blast, others might not agree.

I think if you make class balance too much of a focal point then you start getting into silly things like forcibly balancing the wealth between the characters because they'd be unbalanced otherwise, or dropping magic items on people's laps if one of the other PCs got a magic item and everyone elses feels that their characters are unbalanced.

Daimbert
2007-08-27, 03:42 PM
Nope, there'sa definite distinction.

Obsolete = "not useful"
"less useful" is not the same thing as "not useful"
"less useful" is not the same thing as "obsolete"

I would translate obsolete as "Not GENERALLY useful", which fits my hypothetical. Otherwise you get the examples of things that AREN'T obsolete that I gave in my previous posting.

Or, heck, my CoCo2 isn't obsolete because it can play "Dungeons of Daggorath", which my PC can't (at least easily).


The rogues lock picking skill is a non-limited resource.

Actually, in my hypothetical, neither was the wizard's.

But it's more interesting to look at this from the perspective of class balancing. In real D&D, the idea of your comment here is that whether or not the wizard's Knock ability can open all the same locks as the rogue's ability and more besides, the fact is that it is a limited resource -- it takes a spell slot, and spell slots need resting; those spell slots may be more useful for something else -- makes the rogue's ability useful, and helps to fulfill a role for the party. Especially since a smart DM can make things difficult for those who are relying on the wizard's ability: simply provide a lot of locks. For wizards, this means that they'd have to rest to be able to open all the locks; for sorcerers, this means running them out of low-level spells to open locks. Thus, a rogue has a purpose: opening locks. Add in scouting and a rogue is a class that will be useful for the entire dungeon.

But that's at least rudimentary class balancing, at least to me. To me, class balancing isn't about giving all classes the ability to do everything as well as everyone else, but making it so that what the classes CAN do complements each other and remains useful throughout the entire campaign.

Again, note that I'm not saying that D&D isn't balanced in at least some fashion as it is (necessarily). I'm just talking about the need for class balancing.

(I suspect that a lot of the complaints of the Fighters could be solved by a DM that's willing to sic magic resistant creatures or a horde of small minions supporting the main villain, making "protect the caster" a viable role for melee fighters.)


Depends on how much of the narcoleptic caster play style your GM allows... but that boils down to poor GMing.

True; but again this is class balancing: the wizard's firepower is balanced by the fact that it isn't always available, and once it's gone it's gone. The Fighter's abilities are less impressive ... but they are always available as long as he has hit points remaining.


You actually; I've never claimed that "less useful" means a "very minor case" of anything. Less useful covers everything between "not Useful" and "as Useful"

My objection is that you translated my hypothetical to "less useful" ... and implied that it was a very MINOR version of "less useful". I disagree; taking spell slots out of the picture (eg resting will be happening in a short while) the Fighter might as well stand back and enjoy the barbeque, which is hardly just something like slightly less useful ...


as for my supposed straw man
You said: "But if the wizard can do it faster and easier than having the fighter get involved", which is claiming that the fighter is less useful than the wizard. You go on to assert that because of that, there's no point in the fighter trying to do anything.

That's tantamount to claiming that fighters are useless.

No, it's claiming that in that hypothetical, the Fighter certainly shouldn't even TRY to engage the enemies, since at best he won't kill anything and at worst he'll hinder the wizard from doing it.

If my hypothetical seems to apply to all Fighter cases in D&D, then Fighters are indeed useless. But your comments about resting and spell slots imply, to me, an attempt at class balance, and thus my hypothetical may not apply. But that would simply underscore the importance of at least token attempts to balance classes.


"there's no point in trying to do anything" is pretty absolute. So is "The rogue's lock picking is OBSOLETE"

For the latter, I maintain that it is a fact, not an absolute. And for the former, again, it's a fact; in the HYPOTHETICAL, there's no reason for the Fighter to even draw his sword.

mostlyharmful
2007-08-27, 04:18 PM
There seems to be two camps here,

1 arguing about the roleplay experiance devoid of mechaniks of class balence, in which being outgunned by wizard x frankly doesn't matter, what matters is a sense of fun and the plot.

2 arguing about cruch, in whch the outright usefullness of each member of the party is taken into consideration beyound what witty one liners they can come up with, (into which camp I myself fall) with out the presurres of outside agitation a fighter or even a cleric can shine if what matters is player on player interaction.


(oh and a small flag for all the silent masses that think a fighter still has a vague point in holding a static stratigic point against wave after wave of mooks):smallredface:

Jayabalard
2007-08-27, 04:40 PM
There seems to be two camps herenah, that's not quite correct the camps are:

1. People who need to be as powerful as everyone else to enjoy the game; they stop having fun if they're weaker than someone, or if they feel like someone is stepping on their toes. Generally doesn't like it if some other class can tell the laws of physics to sit down and shut up if they can't also do the same (it makes them feel inadequate or useless). Includes people who enjoy winning encounters by strategy, as well as the people who enjoy straight out overpowering their foes.

2. People who don't care one way or another about relative character power. While they agree that everyone should have their moment in the spotlight, they don't agree that class balance has anything but the most minor influence on that. They are willing trusting the GM to handle the details to make sure that everyone gets their time in the spotlight, since that's what it boils down to regardless of class balance. Includes people who enjoy winning encounters by strategy, as well as the people who enjoy puzzle based victories.


But that's at least rudimentary class balancing, at least to me. /shrug Then you're arguing semantics, specifically the word "balance" ... more than a few people use "class balance" to mean "classes are equally powerful"

nagora
2007-08-27, 04:54 PM
nah, that's not quite correct the camps are:

1. People who need to be as powerful as everyone else to enjoy the game; they stop having fun if they're weaker than someone, or if they feel like someone is stepping on their toes. Generally doesn't like it if some other class can tell the laws of physics to sit down and shut up if they can't also do the same (it makes them feel inadequate or useless). Includes people who enjoy winning encounters by strategy, as well as the people who enjoy straight out overpowering their foes.

2. People who don't care one way or another about relative character power. While they agree that everyone should have their moment in the spotlight, they don't agree that class balance has anything but the most minor influence on that. They are willing trusting the GM to handle the details to make sure that everyone gets their time in the spotlight, since that's what it boils down to regardless of class balance. Includes people who enjoy winning encounters by strategy, as well as the people who enjoy puzzle based victories.


And:

3. People (well, me) who don't think that class balance matters much but thinks that a group that starts of together should stay at a similar relative level of usefulness (to that at which they start) as they progress together, assuming the same amount of XP are awarded to each. This can drift but in general it is undesirable for one player's character to quickly outgrow the others in a group.

This is a group sport, after all.

Damionte
2007-08-27, 05:50 PM
I have a real world example that is being debated constantly in the military and government these days.

The F22 Raptor. That is our new bad ass top of the line Stealth Air Superiority fighter.

When it was deployed the initial thought was that it made all other fighters in the sky obsolete. To a certain degree and up to a point it does. But at the same time it does not.

Head to head the Raptor is far and away superior to every other fighter in the sky. But it comes at a high cost. The fighter is so expensive we can't afford to replace all of our previous generation fighters with it on a one for one basis. If we tried we would be more vulnerable in the sky than before we had the plane, as we could easily be overwhelmed by superior numbers of less effective but still highly effective fighters.

Remember that our current air superiority fighter the F15 Eagle is undefeated in combat. And none of the countries currently hostile to us can really challenge it at the moment.

This rogue vs Wiz with unlimited knock argument is the same thing.

The wizards ability is easier and more powerful. He can use it all the time at range , I mean it kicks butt. The wizards ability came at a much higher cost. The cheapest example would be to have it put in a Ring, and even that costs 20,000.00 Gold. at a fixed lowest possible caster level. The price goes up a ton to have the spell made permanent at higher caster levels.

Where as the Trapfinding ability is free. It's a class ability and can reliably pick most locks with an expenditure of about 10 skill points which is what this trapfinding rogue character was going to do anyway. On top of that the classes which get this ability get a lot of skill points. It costs them practically nothing to do this. They can spend their 20K on something else. :) Like a stack of 2nd to 3rd levels wands of various effect to greatly expand his abilities. be that crowd control stealth direct damage, save or suck, healing whatever. he can do a lot more with that 20K + than a wizard silly enough to blow the same amount of resources on something the party already had for free.

The rogue is still viable with a wizard around. It can be argued that in the current state of the game he's still more valuable in this case than a wizard who spent his resources on knock.

Just as in the real world example. The F15 Eagle is currently a better choice than the F22 Raptor, mostly because we don't yet need the raptors capabilities.

nagora
2007-08-27, 05:55 PM
Just as in the real world example. The F15 Eagle is currently a better choice than the F22 Raptor, mostly because we don't yet need the raptors capabilities.

And proably never will. The problem is that wizards are not actually that hard to get - your party just rolls one up! The vast cost of the F22 which turns it into a flying porkbarrel does not apply to him. You can have him and his knock spell and everything else he does, and he'll ask for no more of a share of the loot than the rogue. Who needs a puny single-function ring?

Damionte
2007-08-27, 06:03 PM
Even if the wizard uses his own spell power to knock you still have a cost situation when compared to the rogue. The wizards spell power is more precious than that.

Yes if the situation warrants it, let the wizard use knock. The wizard though is the secondary choice. Any time he has knock prepared that's a time he doesn't have something more effective prepared. It's an even bigger waste if we don't actually need him to use the knock spell this adventure.

An easier solution is to pay just a few hundred gold and get it put on a wand. Which is the same option the rogue has.

The wizards ability to use knock doesn't make the rogue obsolete. The same as the clerics detect traps spell doesn't make the rogue obsolete. In fact I don't hear cries for the cleric to prepare that one!

Nightblade
2007-08-28, 03:40 AM
Class balance is need mainly so people don't feel bored. A lot of people try "Fighter fixes". One of the things that we changed in my games is bringing back to the old 3.0e Haste, but instead of a partial action, it is a move action. Essentially, it will allow warriors the freedom to make a move action and still make their full-attack action. We also generally give them an open skill list (within reason, so Tumble, Spot, and Listen are fine choices, but Use Magic Device, Open Lock, and Decipher Script are generally a no-no) since a Fighter's concept (as far as I know) is to be flexible to the player's wishes.

Orzel
2007-08-28, 04:31 AM
The open lock versus knock thing never saw much issue to me in practice. Knock uses resources (money or spell slots), only opens 2 "locks" at a time, and doesn't affect ropes and vines. Skills just take time and has level requirements. I'll never forget the DM who put 6 locks on a chest and tied in up with adamantine laced rope. Our rogue smiled.

Class balance is there to keep everyone awake with something to do. Outside of crazy builds, the two classes are balanced for lockpicking.

Irreverent Fool
2007-08-28, 06:06 AM
So wizard should be level 10 when Fighter is 15-16.

It worked out similar to that back in 2nd ed. where each class had its own xp charts. Fighters leveled up faster. Wizards leveled up slower. Made getting that bonus xp your DM gave out for solving a problem using your class abilities important.

nagora
2007-08-28, 06:16 AM
It worked out similar to that back in 2nd ed. where each class had its own xp charts. Fighters leveled up faster. Wizards leveled up slower. Made getting that bonus xp your DM gave out for solving a problem using your class abilities important.

I don't know about 2ed, but in 1st this was also the case but it wasn't a huge difference - I often felt it was not enough at higher levels, and actually at 13th level or so it was the MU who needed the least Xp of the two. Post that the balance changed back. Having said that, the 1e magic users had other things balancing them out so they were not such a problem as they are now anyway.

Variable XP is still the most effective way to balance classes with the least hassle.

Cyborg Pirate
2007-08-28, 06:30 AM
Sign me up as a Big Yay for Class Balance.

No not class balance in terms of damage output in combat, as some seem determined to misunderstand in this thread :smallamused: but class balance as in usefullness. A fighter's skills revolve around combat, but it is there that he/she/it's often outshined without much effort.

Or to put it differently, I like class balance because I like this scenario:

Wizard: I can take them all out with a single spell! But I need time to cast it!!
Fighter: Start casting, I'll hold them back for long enough!
Druid: *shapeshifts* I'll stand with you as best I can Fighter!

Much better then this scenario:

Wizard: Enemies! *cast*
Druid: Oh noes! *shapeshifts and casts*
Fighter: I'll... oh, it's already over isn't it? Right, back to my solitare game.


In the first scenario, the Fighter may not be the fight ender, but he can contribute significantly. In the second scenario (which is the case when D&D is being played by generally intelligent players), the Fighter might as well have been at home reading a good book. Sure the Fighter could have contributed, but only if the others had held back significantly. This is no way to design a system. It's poor design at best, and no amount of "but-we-play-differently" by players changes that.

nagora
2007-08-28, 06:38 AM
In the first scenario, the Fighter may not be the fight ender, but he can contribute significantly. In the second scenario (which is the case when D&D is being played by generally intelligent players), the Fighter might as well have been at home reading a good book. Sure the Fighter could have contributed, but only if the others had held back significantly. This is no way to design a system. It's poor design at best, and no amount of "but-we-play-differently" by players changes that.

As I understand him, that is Jayabalard's stance - the fact that the fighter and druid could not have handled the enemy alone is not important so long as they did have some function to perform. There are others who feel that if the Wizard can take out the enemy with a single ability/spell, then so should a fighter of the same level. Character level then becomes simply a measure of how much damage one can do in combat, as far as I can see.

I agree with you but I think that too many people are finding that their combats are more like fight 2 than fight 1 and boosting fighters is not the right way to fix it.

Tormsskull
2007-08-28, 07:00 AM
This is no way to design a system. It's poor design at best, and no amount of "but-we-play-differently" by players changes that.



Nothing changes the fact that the system CAN be broken, or that it might be much easier broken then in past editions, true. But D&D has always been designed with the idea that a DM is sitting right there with the players. The DM has all of the powers inside the game to make things right.

To be honest with you, in lower level games / games with newer players, Wizards and Druids are often bad. Why? Because most newer player don't pick to be Batman wizards. Most newer player Druids don't optimize their character specifically for wild shape.

You always hear people say things like "Wizards are insanely power, with a Rod of Maximize Spell, a Rod of Quicken Spell, blah, blah". Well, if you are playing with optimiziers, the DM may need to make sure those rods can't be found. "But it says right here in the DMG, Rod of blah, costs X gold." Sure, IF you can find one. Just so happens that this shop (or any other one you might look in) doesn't have them.

And you always hear people say things like "Druids don't have to worry about their physical stats." Sure they do. Because Druids, like all other characters, start at level 1. If your group is creating characters at level 5, 10, 15, 20, 30, 50, 70 or whatever, then the DM should look at your proposed character and ask you to explain how your character survived levels 1-4 with 8 Strength, 8 Dexterity, and 8 Constitution.


So, is the system perfect? Not even close. But no matter how good of a system any company creates, it will always be breakable, no question about it. There will always be a disparity between players that know how to optimizie, and those that don't / choose not to. That's what the DM is there for. For those Wizards and Druids that aren't optimized, dropping a Rod of Maximize or letting the druid become familiar with a particularly animal so he can wild shape into it might actually be needed to make those characters somewhat balanced with the others in the group.

So in summary, let the DM do their job, if you're a player and you can't get your hands on the item of ultimate power, or the DM tells you that there aren't any war trolls around here and there's no way that you could have become familiar with one so you can't wild shape into it, don't whine. Play the game. Have fun. Fin.

Artemician
2007-08-28, 07:04 AM
Nothing changes the fact that the system CAN be broken, or that it might be much easier broken then in past editions, true. But D&D has always been designed with the idea that a DM is sitting right there with the players. The DM has all of the powers inside the game to make things right.

To be honest with you, in lower level games / games with newer players, Wizards and Druids are often bad. Why? Because most newer player don't pick to be Batman wizards. Most newer player Druids don't optimize their character specifically for wild shape.

You always hear people say things like "Wizards are insanely power, with a Rod of Maximize Spell, a Rod of Quicken Spell, blah, blah". Well, if you are playing with optimiziers, the DM may need to make sure those rods can't be found. "But it says right here in the DMG, Rod of blah, costs X gold." Sure, IF you can find one. Just so happens that this shop (or any other one you might look in) doesn't have them.

And you always hear people say things like "Druids don't have to worry about their physical stats." Sure they do. Because Druids, like all other characters, start at level 1. If your group is creating characters at level 5, 10, 15, 20, 30, 50, 70 or whatever, then the DM should look at your proposed character and ask you to explain how your character survived levels 1-4 with 8 Strength, 8 Dexterity, and 8 Constitution.


So, is the system perfect? Not even close. But no matter how good of a system any company creates, it will always be breakable, no question about it. There will always be a disparity between players that know how to optimizie, and those that don't / choose not to. That's what the DM is there for. For those Wizards and Druids that aren't optimized, dropping a Rod of Maximize or letting the druid become familiar with a particularly animal so he can wild shape into it might actually be needed to make those characters somewhat balanced with the others in the group.

So in summary, let the DM do their job, if you're a player and you can't get your hands on the item of ultimate power, or the DM tells you that there aren't any war trolls around here and there's no way that you could have become familiar with one so you can't wild shape into it, don't whine. Play the game. Have fun. Fin.


Ah.. but Tormsskull, I don't think every single person is saying that it's not possible to have fun with imbalanced classes, or that a sufficiently advanced DM can make anything fun.

The thing is, I feel that having balanced classes makes it easier for the DM to ensure that everyone is capable of having fun, and I'm sure that you wouldn't disagree with me on this point.

Yes, you can, through your DMing, make things more balanced. But this is, work. If the classes were moderately balanced to begin with, it would be less work for you to do.

Cyborg Pirate
2007-08-28, 07:23 AM
[snipped ranting]

-_-

I find this a very empty rant. I can use D&D with enough houserules and a good enough DM to play cyberpunk. Doesn't change anything about the core system. I wold find your rant somewhat more relevant if D&D were a rules light system.

Also note that No-one is advocating to perfect a slightly imperfect system. We're talking about making a very imperfect slightly less imperfect. In the examples I gave above, the first example wasn't of a perfect system. The fighter was not all powerful, but he could do something for the others. That's what I and most of the others are aiming for.

Journey
2007-08-28, 07:37 AM
The thing is, I feel that having balanced classes makes it easier for the DM to ensure that everyone is capable of having fun, and I'm sure that you wouldn't disagree with me on this point.He might not, but I would. I wouldn't say it's harder necessarily, either.


Yes, you can, through your DMing, make things more balanced. But this is, work. If the classes were moderately balanced to begin with, it would be less work for you to do.I don't see how it's necessarily less work. What about group composition? Certainly a group consisting of a Druid, a Fighter, a Rogue, and a Ranger is going to present a different set of abilities to design challenges for than a group consisting of a Wizard, a Monk, a Bard, and a Paladin, yes? When you say it's "less work," I take that to mean that, in your opinion, you should be able to take the exact same out-of-the-box adventure and throw it at either party and have them both be equally successful. Why should this be the case? Doesn't that imply that something, somewhere, is a bit, well, uncreative?

Or, to put it another way, why try to use a hammer for screws?

Class based systems are systems in which different characters of different classes do different things and fill different niches. If you want to play a game where all the characters can contribute equally to every situation with a judicious choice of abilities, play a skill-based system and trust the DM to make appropriate adventures. D&D isn't and never has been about "class balance" by design in the mechanics (beyond the trivial level--Gygax's admonition against one player consuming the central role was less about game mechanics and more about play style)--it has always been about the DM and players conspiring to create a fun environment to play in.

The reason 3.x seems broken in this regard is because the designers made the system to closely resemble the mechanics seen in combat driven MMORPGs, and thus to encourage players to play in this style, without including sufficient "fluff" in the manuals to help them realize that a bit of imagination and creativity might be needed to enjoy the product fully.

Tormsskull
2007-08-28, 07:41 AM
Yes, you can, through your DMing, make things more balanced. But this is, work. If the classes were moderately balanced to begin with, it would be less work for you to do.

The classes are "moderately balanced" in 3.5, I would say. As soon as you start pileing on options, then it can become unbalanced. As I was saying, if you limit a druid's wildshapes then it makes them more balanced. But, why do we start from the assumption that a druid should be able to wild shape into anything he pleases?

We read the rule, and (if someone wants to post SRD link cool, otherwise from my memory) it says something like "the druid must be intimately familiar with the animal". Now, in past editions this would be a dead stop. A player would read that and say "The DM is basically going to have total control over what I can wild shape into". But in 3.x the attitude seems to be "Since there is no specific mechanic stating otherwise, I can shape into any animal I want."

Under those assumptions, yeah, the druid is going to be unbalanced, as is any class that has that much versatility to it.

So to your original point, Artemician, what do you think actually unbalanced 3.5, the rules as written, or the rules as interpretted?



I find this a very empty rant. I can use D&D with enough houserules and a good enough DM to play cyberpunk. Doesn't change anything about the core system. I wold find your rant somewhat more relevant if D&D were a rules light system.


Thanks for snipping quote to save space btw.

Same queston to you, Cyborg Pirate, what do you think actually unbalanced 3.5, the rules as written, or the rules as interpretted? You seem to think the core system is unbalanced. Can you point specifically at what you believe is unbalanced?

Jayabalard
2007-08-28, 07:43 AM
Ah.. but Tormsskull, I don't think anyone is saying that it's not possible to have fun with imbalanced classes, or that a sufficiently advanced DM can make anything fun. You think wrong.

You could fix that statement by changing "I don't think anyone is saying" to "not everyone is saying"

There have been at least a few people that were claiming that it's not possible to have fun when playing with disparate power levels; you know, that Jimmy Olson vs superman scenario, and all those groups with both a 20 wizard and 20 fighter in them where someone just can't have fun?


The thing is, I feel that having balanced classes makes it easier for the DM to ensure that everyone is capable of having fun, and I'm sure that you wouldn't disagree with me on this point.

Yes, you can, through your DMing, make things more balanced. But this is, work. If the classes were moderately balanced to begin with, it would be less work for you to do.Nope, I disagree; there is not a significant difference in difficulty between creating encounters in a game with disparate power levels, so having balanced classes does not make it easier on the DM. The creation process remains identical. And even if it were less work, it takes away from the game rather than adding anything.

Setra
2007-08-28, 07:47 AM
Just a thought but..

One arguement I saw often was "Then your DM isn't good enough".

However, I'd like to argue that.. short of an anti-magic field, what can a DM do to make a Fighter useful at high levels, if a Wizard is in the party?

Artemician
2007-08-28, 07:57 AM
I don't see how it's necessarily less work. What about group composition? Certainly a group consisting of a Druid, a Fighter, a Rogue, and a Ranger is going to present a different set of abilities to design challenges for than a group consisting of a Wizard, a Monk, a Bard, and a Paladin, yes?


The problem of class differentiation (regardless of comparative power level) is already present in the status quo. If you know that the classes are designed in such a way, that any one build won't overshadow another by a significant margin, you can thus devote more time to tailoring encounters to suit your party composition. And yes, it is less work than in the status quo, in which you have to take into account the skew in overall Class Power levels, as well as the tiny little inbalances that come from Class Differentiation.


Class based systems are systems in which different characters of different classes do different things and fill different niches. If you want to play a game where all the characters can contribute equally to every situation with a judicious choice of abilities, play a skill-based system and trust the DM to make appropriate adventures. D&D isn't and never has been about "class balance" by design in the mechanics (beyond the trivial level--Gygax's admonition against one player consuming the central role was less about game mechanics and more about play style)--it has always been about the DM and players conspiring to create a fun environment to play in.[/quot]

The reason 3.x seems broken in this regard is because the designers made the system to closely resemble the mechanics seen in combat driven MMORPGs, and thus to encourage players to play in this style, without including sufficient "fluff" in the manuals to help them realize that a bit of imagination and creativity might be needed to enjoy the product fully.

Classes occupy niches. That is correct. However, I feel that these niches should at least, be of moderately equal value. The Battlefield control Wizard should contribute equally to something as a Hit-and-run Scout, albeit in different ways. The Wizard contributes by locking down enemies, and the Scout contributes by picking them off one by one. The problem that I have, is basically that certain niches are far more important than others, and some classes can, in effect, render other classes' niches unimportant. (Above Wizard can just as easily, instead of locking down, unleash a SoD and render the Scout's niche gone). This is something that needs to be changed.


So to your original point, Artemician, what do you think actually unbalanced 3.5, the rules as written, or the rules as interpretted?

I don't actually feel that anything is "broken", per se, given that I'm arguing under the assumption that a sensible player wouldn't try to break his character.

But the problem is that, the Rules as Written are written in such a way that makes it easy for a "Broken" interpretation. To clarify what I mean, there's nothing that's forcing a Wizard to use SoDs, but there's nothing stopping him from reasonably learning them anyway. In fact, since a substantial portion of spells in the PHB are SoDs, in a way you could say that it's nudging a player in that direction.

Sometimes, the urge to "break" need not even be there. I'm sure you've heard stories of the new player who saw a druid, went "Hey, this is cool!", and basically ended up dominating the game due to Wildshaping into a Bear (not particularly far-fetched) and having a Bear companion (also not particularly far-fetched).

Tormsskull
2007-08-28, 08:03 AM
However, I'd like to argue that.. short of an anti-magic field, what can a DM do to make a Fighter useful at high levels, if a Wizard is in the party?

*takes a deep breath*


Limit a wizard's access to scrolls. This makes the 2 spells they pick when the level up important.
Limit the wizard's access to magic items that replicate feats (because feats are costly). Namely looking at the rods of maximize, blah, etc.
Review the list of spells, and look for broken ones. Remove those right away. (If you do a search on these boards several others and myself have threads dedicated to broken spells).
Use intelligent opponents. Magic is powerful, for sure, so surely the opponents are going to have spell casters on their side as well, right? If the PC wizard throws glitterdust and knocks out 3 minions, imagine what an enemy wizard's glitterdust could do to the PCs.
Use spell-resistant / spell-immune enemies at higher levels.
Don't allow wizards to simply rest whenever they want. Make some/most of the adventures revolve around a timeline.
Make magic weird/awkward in the world. Since magic is so powerful, there have probably been plenty of times in the past when someone or something used magic to destroy/subvert/do other nasty evil things. People probably fear magic. There might even be organisations built around the specific purpose of combatting wizards. Might have even spawned Anti-wizard PrCs.


These are all options that are short of homebrewing (i.e., using the existing rules). In my own campaigns I attach expensive material components to insane spells like Fly, for example.

Edit:


The problem that I have, is basically that certain niches are far more important than others, and some classes can, in effect, render other classes' niches unimportant. (Above Wizard can just as easily, instead of locking down, unleash a SoD and render the Scout's niche gone). This is something that needs to be changed.


The value of a niche is determined solely by the DM. If the DM is running a hack n slash type game where the group runs from one encounter to the next, and each encounter is composed of "fight these guys", then the characters that have chosen to specialize in "fighting these guys" are naturally going to be good at the task.

If the Wizard in the group memorizes all SoDs, and the adventure features puzzle-solving, interacting with NPCs, Powerful single foes that have high saves, etc, then the Wizard's SoDs are less impressive. And enemies can be buffed just as the PCs can. Low level Save ors like Color Spray and Glitter Dust effect groups of opponents. If using 1 opponent or several opponents that cluster inside the PCs defenses, these spells will be less useful.



But the problem is that, the Rules as Written are written in such a way that makes it easy for a "Broken" interpretation. To clarify what I mean, there's nothing that's forcing a Wizard to use SoDs, but there's nothing stopping him from reasonably learning them anyway.


Ok, so IYO if WotC does a better job of defining the rules and giving less room for interpretation, that would help clear things up? I don't think that's too much to ask. But, for the current edition, if you can spot those questionable interpretations and notice the possibility of a problem, then you can fix it.



Sometimes, the urge to "break" need not even be there. I'm sure you've heard stories of the new player who saw a druid, went "Hey, this is cool!", and basically ended up dominating the game due to Wildshaping into a Bear (not particularly far-fetched) and having a Bear companion (also not particularly far-fetched).

But if the druid dominates the game by wildshaping into a bear, this assume that the druid is using melee combat to complete encounters. That tells me that it is possible for melee to solve encounters in those situations. So as long as the DM spices it up, by throwing in encounters where it is more advantageous to solve using melee, magic, skills, etc, then each niche can shine.

Setra
2007-08-28, 08:12 AM
*takes a deep breath*


Limit a wizard's access to scrolls. This makes the 2 spells they pick when the level up important.
Limit the wizard's access to magic items that replicate feats (because feats are costly). Namely looking at the rods of maximize, blah, etc.
Review the list of spells, and look for broken ones. Remove those right away. (If you do a search on these boards several others and myself have threads dedicated to broken spells).
Use intelligent opponents. Magic is powerful, for sure, so surely the opponents are going to have spell casters on their side as well, right? If the PC wizard throws glitterdust and knocks out 3 minions, imagine what an enemy wizard's glitterdust could do to the PCs.
Use spell-resistant / spell-immune enemies at higher levels.
Don't allow wizards to simply rest whenever they want. Make some/most of the adventures revolve around a timeline.
Make magic weird/awkward in the world. Since magic is so powerful, there have probably been plenty of times in the past when someone or something used magic to destroy/subvert/do other nasty evil things. People probably fear magic. There might even be organisations built around the specific purpose of combatting wizards. Might have even spawned Anti-wizard PrCs.


These are all options that are short of homebrewing (i.e., using the existing rules). In my own campaigns I attach expensive material components to insane spells like Fly, for example.
In other words you have to pretty much bar some of the Wizard's access to power, make it slightly dangerous just to be a Wizard, and use enemies resistant to the Wizard, just to make a Fighter useful?

That's a lot of work, thus I can agree with people who say the Wizard is overpowered.

Though it is a somewhat unfair comparison, since comparing a lot of things to a Fighter makes them seem better.

Logos7
2007-08-28, 08:24 AM
something I'm hoping to see in 4th and am considering homebrewing in general is spell trees like with shadowcasters. Short little 3 or 4 spell lines that match thematically and effectively increase the cost and decrease the usability of high level spells ( If you get a spell outside your tree... you either cast it off the scroll or learn the tree).

I think that a much bigger problem than balance is the sheer ability to dominate the turn structure, and save or die/suck spells. And these begin to come into play at middish-low not high levels. I dont really care if the wizard is casting lots of powerful magic probably more powerful than is good for balance, as long as the fighter still gets to do stuff, at comparably the same rate, without hoardes of magic items. Ie nott Timestop and Celerity = Forcecage and Cloudkill, repeat that a powerhungery wizard will attempt to pull off or any number of combos of the ilk.

Also this is for Player vs Player Balance, not DM vs Player. As a Player I should have an equal shot at the game. This doesn't mean equal power but rather, the same capability for enjoyment(Just look at Bard and Monk Lovers for my example here).

Theirs already lots of stuff (edit as a DM)that I don't use on a regular basis becuase its not fun, I dont see why optimizied wizards ( not that i dont play them intelligently) should be any different ( How many of you use level drain, ability drain, Sunder and Grapple on regular basis)

Winterwind
2007-08-28, 08:27 AM
Just a thought but..

One arguement I saw often was "Then your DM isn't good enough".

However, I'd like to argue that.. short of an anti-magic field, what can a DM do to make a Fighter useful at high levels, if a Wizard is in the party?Even though I'm not a D&D DM, how about just involving the Fighter into the story? I mean, Aragorn is without doubt way more powerful in pretty much any conceivable way than any of the hobbits, and yet all of them had their part in the story (and I'm not even talking about Frodo right now - I'm sure Merry or Pippin would have been quite fun to play as as well. At least, as long as the DM in question is not the DM of the Rings).

Tormsskull
2007-08-28, 08:30 AM
In other words you have to pretty much bar some of the Wizard's access to power, make it slightly dangerous just to be a Wizard, and use enemies resistant to the Wizard, just to make a Fighter useful?


If that's what you want to label it. I label it "Making the world make sense." If every two-bit wizard can stumble in a magic shop and walk out the supreme overlord of the world, then something is wrong. If spells like Time Stop are "I win buttons", then no magic shop in their right mind is going to sell a scroll of Time Stop. Every quasi-deity and super-powerful king/ruler/archmage is going to want to keep those scrolls out of the hands of other people.

I think the main problem is that the Wizard has glaring weakness', and for some reason people think it is unfair for the opponents to take advantage of those weakness'.

As someone else mentioned, if a fighter can kill a wizard in 1 attack, then the DM would be being mean if he allows the fighter to get that 1 attack. I view it the other way around. If you're a wizard and you know you can be killed in 1 attack, then you should expect that enemies know you can be killed in 1 attack, and thus you should take precautions against that.

In the game I am in right now I am a wizard (level 4). I use color spray and glitterdust, but my strength is so low (3) I can't even successfully Coup de grace opponents I knock out with color spray. So my role in the party is to disable some opponents and let the other PCs focus on the ones still standing.

We recently stumbled into a cavern full of undead. My character is virtually useless because I'm focused on hitting people with spells that force will saves. But that's ok, because I don't need to be able to take out everything to have fun. I have fun being part of the group that takes things down. Lots of times my party members laugh at me because I tend to hide when I can. I am quite specifically the glass cannon that a wizard is designed to be. And it's a lot of fun.

Morty
2007-08-28, 08:38 AM
Even though I'm not a D&D DM, how about just involving the Fighter into the story? I mean, Aragorn is without doubt way more powerful in pretty much any conceivable way than any of the hobbits, and yet all of them had their part in the story (and I'm not even talking about Frodo right now - I'm sure Merry or Pippin would have been quite fun to play as as well. At least, as long as the DM in question is not the DM of the Rings).

Being "involved into story" isn't enough. Wizard is just as involved into story as fighter, but he's far more useful in combat.


If that's what you want to label it. I label it "Making the world make sense." If every two-bit wizard can stumble in a magic shop and walk out the supreme overlord of the world, then something is wrong. If spells like Time Stop are "I win buttons", then no magic shop in their right mind is going to sell a scroll of Time Stop. Every quasi-deity and super-powerful king/ruler/archmage is going to want to keep those scrolls out of the hands of other people.

I think the main problem is that the Wizard has glaring weakness', and for some reason people think it is unfair for the opponents to take advantage of those weakness'.

As someone else mentioned, if a fighter can kill a wizard in 1 attack, then the DM would be being mean if he allows the fighter to get that 1 attack. I view it the other way around. If you're a wizard and you know you can be killed in 1 attack, then you should expect that enemies know you can be killed in 1 attack, and thus you should take precautions against that.

And wouldn't it be nice if you had those for granted without having to take special care so that casters don't overshadow everyone else? As for weakness of wizards- those start to become irrelevant after 13 level or so, because it's easy for wizard to make himself untouchable.

Winterwind
2007-08-28, 08:49 AM
Being "involved into story" isn't enough. Wizard is just as involved into story as fighter, but he's far more useful in combat.This largely depends on how much of a roleplaying session is spent on combat, and how much on the story. If in a six hour session there is, say, half an hour of combat, and additionally the DM dedicates some of the session's time to give those characters who didn't have a chance to shine as much yet to do precisely so (say, by involving specifically the Fighter into an important or just interesting discussion with a NPC, or by having the Fighter have some visions or dreams which can be roleplayed, or stuff like that), I honestly don't see the problem if the Fighter's contribution to some combat scene isn't as big as that of some other PC.

Artemician
2007-08-28, 08:56 AM
If that's what you want to label it. I label it "Making the world make sense." If every two-bit wizard can stumble in a magic shop and walk out the supreme overlord of the world, then something is wrong. If spells like Time Stop are "I win buttons", then no magic shop in their right mind is going to sell a scroll of Time Stop. Every quasi-deity and super-powerful king/ruler/archmage is going to want to keep those scrolls out of the hands of other people.


Fun Situations, in which fun is had, to the enjoyment of all.

These situations, are in fact, how I would like games to play out, in general. Sadly, these situations do not appear as frequently as I would like. The "Wizard Disables" one, sadly, only crops up in the lower levels, as in higher levels the Wizard is more than capable of disabling/killing entire mobs all by his lonesome, and mops up himself, as well.


And wouldn't it be nice if you had those for granted without having to take special care so that casters don't overshadow everyone else?

Thank you, M0rt.

Tormsskull
2007-08-28, 08:58 AM
And wouldn't it be nice if you had those for granted without having to take special care so that casters don't overshadow everyone else?


I think you and I are mostly in agreement, except that where I'm saying its up to the DM to find the holes in the rules and plug them since it is impossible for WotC to make a holeless game that would work for each and every group, you're saying WotC needs to be more diligent and make their finished product as hole-free as possible. Am I getting that right?



As for weakness of wizards- those start to become irrelevant after 13 level or so, because it's easy for wizard to make himself untouchable.

If the Wizard has access to certain spells, and if the Wizard is able to cast those spells to buff up before an encounter breaks out, and if the environment / enemies fit the mold that the Wizard is using spells to protect against.

Now, I'll give you that in a standard hum-drum hack n slash campaign, that those Ifs might all turn into "duhs".

Jayabalard
2007-08-28, 09:07 AM
Being "involved into story" isn't enough. Wizard is just as involved into story as fighter, but he's far more useful in combat.This is very much playstyle dependent; for many players, that is indeed enough.


And wouldn't it be nice if you had those for granted without having to take special care so that casters don't overshadow everyone else? No.

It doesn't change the DM process at all from my standpoint... unless you're playing in a group where everyone has identical abilities, there are still going to be things that need to be accounted for when designing encounters, so it doesn't actually shorten the process.

Making it "easier" just means that its easier for people to use the existing balance as a crutch rather than tweaking it to fit their group better; the best games that I've played have always included a certain amount of house ruling and balancing by the DM, because that makes the game fit the players rather than the other way around.


Ok, so IYO if WotC does a better job of defining the rules and giving less room for interpretation, that would help clear things up? I don't think that's too much to ask. But, for the current edition, if you can spot those questionable interpretations and notice the possibility of a problem, then you can fix it. No matter how much "better" the game design becomes in futures editions, this sort of fixing is still going to be necessary; it's an important part of the GM skill set. It's one of the good features of D&D: it's just broken enough to encourage DMs to learn the sort of thing that they should be learning.

Morty
2007-08-28, 09:19 AM
I think you and I are mostly in agreement, except that where I'm saying its up to the DM to find the holes in the rules and plug them since it is impossible for WotC to make a holeless game that would work for each and every group, you're saying WotC needs to be more diligent and make their finished product as hole-free as possible. Am I getting that right?

What I'm saying is while DM can "plug" holes in the rules it'd be much better if WotC made sure there are as little holes as possible. Which they'll hopefully do in 4ed. It's impossible to create holeless game, but it's possible to leave only small number of holes that can be ignored or worked over.


If the Wizard has access to certain spells, and if the Wizard is able to cast those spells to buff up before an encounter breaks out, and if the environment / enemies fit the mold that the Wizard is using spells to protect against.

Now, I'll give you that in a standard hum-drum hack n slash campaign, that those Ifs might all turn into "duhs".

The problem is, while DM can counter wizard by designing encounters properly, he can do this to fighter as well. And if circumstances "coincidentally" screw wizard over it doesn't look too good.


This largely depends on how much of a roleplaying session is spent on combat, and how much on the story. If in a six hour session there is, say, half an hour of combat, and additionally the DM dedicates some of the session's time to give those characters who didn't have a chance to shine as much yet to do precisely so (say, by involving specifically the Fighter into an important or just interesting discussion with a NPC, or by having the Fighter have some visions or dreams which can be roleplayed, or stuff like that), I honestly don't see the problem if the Fighter's contribution to some combat scene isn't as big as that of some other PC.

In case of roleplaying, classes are often irrelevant. While class imbalance doesn't get into the way of roleplaying, I belive we're talking about combat here. Besides, it's not much fun roleplaying mighty warrior if you have troubles fighting anything.


This is very much playstyle dependent; for many players, that is indeed enough.

See above. If campaign is focused on roleplaying, class imbalance doesn't get in the way because it doesn't exist at all.


No.

It doesn't change the DM process at all from my standpoint... unless you're playing in a group where everyone has identical abilities, there are still going to be things that need to be accounted for when designing encounters, so it doesn't actually make it easier.

Find someone who enjoys that process, and chances are you've found a really good GM.

I don't think I understand you here. If classes were even remotely balanced, DM wouldn't have to create encounters to balance players against each other class-wise. So DM would have a lot less work.

Jayabalard
2007-08-28, 09:37 AM
What I'm saying is while DM can "plug" holes in the rules it'd be much better if WotC made sure there are as little holes as possible. Which they'll hopefully do in 4ed. I disagree that having imbalanced classes is a hole, since it doesn't necessarily need to be plugged.


The problem is, while DM can counter wizard by designing encounters properly, he can do this to fighter as well. And if circumstances "coincidentally" screw wizard over it doesn't look too good.Why would coincidence be involved? If there is magic in the world, and it's powerful, people are going to devote a good portion of defenses to it.


In case of roleplaying, classes are often irrelevant. While class imbalance doesn't get into the way of roleplaying, I belive we're talking about combat here. You believe wrong; were talking about the game as a whole, so you can't just toss out the playstyle part.

besides, if you use mechanics at all, and have classes at all, then class balance can affect roleplaying.


Besides, it's not much fun roleplaying mighty warrior if you have troubles fighting anything.The thing is, fighters don't have troubles fighting anything, they have troubles fighting magic, and that's not the same thing at all. Roleplaying a mighty warrior who can;t affect magic may or may not be fun, depending on the player and the playstyle.


See above. If campaign is focused on roleplaying, class imbalance doesn't get in the way because it doesn't exist at all. Yes, class imbalances can have an effect even in roleplaying; whether it does or not is playstyle dependent.


I don't think I understand you here. If classes were even remotely balanced, DM wouldn't have to create encounters to balance players against each other class-wise. So DM would have a lot less work.unless the characters have all identical abilities, the dm will still have to create encounters that showcase each player... Even if classes are perfectly balanced (which isn't possible), this process needs to happen to make the game as good as it can be.

Having better balanced classes doesn't shorten the process, doesn't give a good dm any less work, and doesn't make for a better game. At best, it allows a GM to substitute dogmatic adherence to the rules for creativity, which I don't view as a good thing.

Rex Blunder
2007-08-28, 09:45 AM
What I'm saying is while DM can "plug" holes in the rules it'd be much better if WotC made sure there are as little holes as possible.

Agreed.

I agree that a good DM can come up with fixes for all the potential problems caused by balance issues. Heck, a good DM could run a fun game with any ruleset - 1ed, 2ed, 3ed, 4ed, or Unisys. But the real test of a game is how it runs for beginning DMs, DMs who play the game as WOTC intended it, and other assorted "average" DMs. If 4ed makes a game that's more fun and easier for beginners and people without the imagination and time to spend a lot of time tinkering with the RAW, then that can only be good. I doubt it will mean that the really good DMs and players will be having less fun.

Morty
2007-08-28, 09:51 AM
I disagree that having imbalanced classes is a hole, since it doesn't necessarily need to be plugged.

For you, classes don't need to be balanced, alright. But for most players, they do. And would it make the game worse for you if the classes were balanced?


Why would coincidence be involved? If there is magic in the world, and it's powerful, people are going to devote a good portion of defenses to it.

Fighters are in the world too, and there are even more of them than there are mages. So why would enemies plan against wizards only, and not for fighters?


You believe wrong; were talking about the game as a whole, so you can't just toss out the playstyle part.

besides, if you use mechanics at all, and have classes at all, then class balance can affect roleplaying.

Which only proves my point, because if classes are imbalanced, people playing weaker classes are likely to have less fun from roleplaying as well. What's the point of RPing a warrior if you can't contribute meaningfully to combat?


The thing is, fighters don't have troubles fighting anything, they have troubles fighting magic, and that's not the same thing at all. Roleplaying a mighty warrior who can;t affect magic may or may not be fun, depending on the player and the playstyle.

On high levels, fighting against magic is almost granted, I'm afraid, which is why fighters suffer so much on high levels.


unless the characters have all identical abilities, the dm will still have to create encounters that showcase each player... Even if classes are perfectly balanced (which isn't possible), this process needs to happen to make the game as good as it can be.

Emphasis mine. If classes are balanced, DM's working to make a game good. If they aren't, DM needs to work to make game enjoyable at all for some players. Besides, while you may enjoy tweaking the game so that players can contribute equally, others might want to just mave balanced classes as-is and turn their creativity into designing interesting adventures.


Having better balanced classes doesn't shorten the process, doesn't give a good dm any less work, and doesn't make for a better game. At best, it allows a GM to substitute dogmatic adherence to the rules for creativity, which I don't view as a good thing.

You've lost me here. What's got adherence to the rules to class balance?