PDA

View Full Version : Best inter-class balanced game?



Skylivedk
2019-08-05, 07:00 AM
Hello Playground,

I've been nearly obsessed with finding a tabletop RPG that didn't suffer from the Quadratic Casters and Linear Warriors syndrome. I've not really found it yet.

I've looked at:
D&D 3x & 5e
Pathfinder 1e & 2e
Hackmaster
Dungeon World
Dragon Age (unfortunately no Advanced Stunts for Martials)

On my current to look list is:
nWod (I'm currently looking at Exalted - is there something from White Wolf that is slightly lower fantasy; ie you're not divine from the get-go, but you still got dwarves and elves)
Warhammer Fantasy


What are your best experiences? I'd like a game where the different classes are smoothly on par throughout the game and preferably one where the classes have options in and out of combat from an early level.

gkathellar
2019-08-05, 08:08 AM
Going by your list so far, are we to understand that you're specifically looking for action/adventure fantasy games?

FATE and other free-er form games will of course solve your issues by placing magic in the same problem-solving matrix as anything else, but they may not be crunchy enough for your tastes.

D&D 4E entirely avoids the linear/quadratic issue, but be advised that it's primarily a miniatures skirmishing game, with somewhat less versatility than much of what you' looked at.

13th Age is similar to 4E some respects but with a more narrative bent. It is generally well-balanced, although there's a love of random-chance mechanics that may not appeal to everyone.

Shadow of the Demon Lord is action/horror fantasy and might be worth glancing over - I haven't read it in enough depth that I feel comfortable discussing its balance point.

Zakhara
2019-08-05, 09:44 AM
Hard as it is to believe, OD&D was arguably the most exhaustively playtested and balanced among editions for a while. It helps there were only three classes, of course.

Koo Rehtorb
2019-08-05, 09:49 AM
Blades in the Dark, I guess.

Psyren
2019-08-05, 11:55 AM
If you value class balance that highly I'd say that 4e is probably right up your alley. Subforum is here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?58-D-amp-D-4e) if you'd like to reach out to Playgrounders that run it more regularly.

Lapak
2019-08-05, 12:14 PM
For the sake of clarity, are you only looking at class-based games, or anything that has both mundane and magical character options?

erikun
2019-08-05, 05:13 PM
On my current to look list is:
nWod (I'm currently looking at Exalted - is there something from White Wolf that is slightly lower fantasy; ie you're not divine from the get-go, but you still got dwarves and elves)
Exalted is not going to do what you have intended. If anything, it will be actively worse. There is absolutely no balance concept between the Solars, the Lunars, and anything else. There isn't really much balance concept between different charms available in Exalted. World of Darkness in general doesn't tend towards balance. And to answer your question, Scion: Hero/Demigod/God (or the recent re-release, Scion: Origin/Hero from Onyx Path) is the lower-powered fantasy version of Exalted. You play as children of gods, starting out as basically tough mortals and gradually getting more god powers as you progress.

Lord Raziere
2019-08-05, 06:25 PM
Exalted is not going to do what you have intended. If anything, it will be actively worse. There is absolutely no balance concept between the Solars, the Lunars, and anything else. There isn't really much balance concept between different charms available in Exalted. World of Darkness in general doesn't tend towards balance. And to answer your question, Scion: Hero/Demigod/God (or the recent re-release, Scion: Origin/Hero from Onyx Path) is the lower-powered fantasy version of Exalted. You play as children of gods, starting out as basically tough mortals and gradually getting more god powers as you progress.

Agreed, do NOT go into Exalted or the NWod think its balanced at all. Solars are the intended minmax story-breaker Exalted and the most raw numbers in terms of stats. the rest of the splats are all about figuring how you can beat those guys without having the same amount of raw power and is intended to be unfair.

Vknight
2019-08-05, 07:19 PM
Hello Playground,

I've been nearly obsessed with finding a tabletop RPG that didn't suffer from the Quadratic Casters and Linear Warriors syndrome. I've not really found it yet.

I've looked at:
D&D 3x & 5e
Pathfinder 1e & 2e
Hackmaster
Dungeon World
Dragon Age (unfortunately no Advanced Stunts for Martials)

On my current to look list is:
nWod (I'm currently looking at Exalted - is there something from White Wolf that is slightly lower fantasy; ie you're not divine from the get-go, but you still got dwarves and elves)
Warhammer Fantasy


What are your best experiences? I'd like a game where the different classes are smoothly on par throughout the game and preferably one where the classes have options in and out of combat from an early level.

As said the answer is FATE

The simply thing is most of those you listed you have tried are d20. And d20 simply put is not a problematic system because you either have extensive whiplash.

Try FATE
Try Mutants and Masterminds if you seriously cannot get the group on board with FATE or are unwilling to try such a system.


That is the other thing is that simply put wizards have utility and simply put that utility will always get the fighters hurt because they feel somehow its not fair for the wizard to just fly with his magic or something


So look for systems that are point buy

Where fighters can get magic gear or cool abilities, well the wizards still get there utility.

Using FATE look at Dresden to shape reality costs 6 of probably your 8 or 10 starting refresh. That is a lot so why not then the fighters can have more options to alter the game with fate points by spending them to know people or other things.

Dimers
2019-08-06, 12:09 AM
What are your best experiences? I'd like a game where the different classes are smoothly on par throughout the game and preferably one where the classes have options in and out of combat from an early level.

Out of what I've tried, D&D 4e and 13th Age sound best for you, and GURPS wouldn't be awful but doesn't really have classes. In 4e, martial classes are strong in every combat role except "controller" and have every bit as much noncombat ability as any spellcaster. In 13th Age, almost everything outside combat comes down to convincing the GM that some aspect of your background is relevant, and all classes have solid combat options.

Gringnr
2019-08-06, 01:37 AM
Hello Playground,

I've been nearly obsessed with finding a tabletop RPG that didn't suffer from the Quadratic Casters and Linear Warriors syndrome. I've not really found it yet.

I've looked at:
D&D 3x & 5e
Pathfinder 1e & 2e
Hackmaster
Dungeon World
Dragon Age (unfortunately no Advanced Stunts for Martials)

On my current to look list is:
nWod (I'm currently looking at Exalted - is there something from White Wolf that is slightly lower fantasy; ie you're not divine from the get-go, but you still got dwarves and elves)
Warhammer Fantasy


What are your best experiences? I'd like a game where the different classes are smoothly on par throughout the game and preferably one where the classes have options in and out of combat from an early level.

Have you considered Zweihander? It's a sort of fantasy heartbreaker/ retro-clone of Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay 2e, with more modern design elements. One of the oft-repeated criticisms of WFRP 2e was balance issues. I'm not sure to what extent those issues have been fixed in the 4th Edition of WFRP, but Zweihander was initially written in the void between 2nd and 4th, when many fans were turned off by 3e's radically different mechanics. And Zweihander was specifically designed using a "Bounded Accuracy" model (there was a statistician involved in the development), intended to fix the balance issues of its parent game's early editions. Character advancement is pretty even and deliberate. It's low fantasy, with more down to earth characters (i.e., not overpowered) but it still has magic, fantasy races (only if you want them), gods and monsters.

I've just started playing it (one session in) and I like it.

Based on what you've said you're looking for, I think Zweihander ticks the following boxes:

"a tabletop RPG that didn't suffer from the Quadratic Casters and Linear Warriors syndrome" - check, even and deliberate advancement

"slightly lower fantasy; ie you're not divine from the get-go, but you still got dwarves and elves" - check, characters start out a little more powerful than in WFRP, but still weaker than in many elfgames

"a game where the different classes are smoothly on par throughout the game" - check, bounded accuracy

'preferably one where the classes have options in and out of combat from an early level" - check, it's a skill-based system

Hope this helps!

Vhaidara
2019-08-06, 05:33 AM
Regarding Exalted: it depends on what you consider the class. I'd say it's reasonably balanced if you consider each exalt type to be a different game, not a different class, and look at the subdivisions within the Exaltations as your classes. So rather than compare Solar to Dragonblood, you compare the Night Caste to the Dawn, or the Fire Aspect to the Wood Aspect. And on THAT level I think Exalted IS one of the better balanced games, if for no other reason than because the classes are more like archetypes and have relatively few abilities that the others don't.

Quertus
2019-08-06, 07:13 AM
That is the other thing is that simply put wizards have utility and simply put that utility will always get the fighters hurt because they feel somehow its not fair for the wizard to just fly with his magic or something

Is this the opportune moment to point out that older editions of D&D usually had the maybe-not-quite-quadratic utility Fighters lugging around the useless Wizards? Often for years, before the Wizard actually got to the point of being worth having along?

Vknight
2019-08-06, 08:45 AM
Is this the opportune moment to point out that older editions of D&D usually had the maybe-not-quite-quadratic utility Fighters lugging around the useless Wizards? Often for years, before the Wizard actually got to the point of being worth having along?

Yes because that is a solution.
Punish both sides heavily. Make the fighter have to do an escort quest and take getting to level 5+ take years in a campaign because all of those things are good ideas.
Make the wizards worthless until level 5+ and then at 11+ give everything anti-magic, because those are good game ideas.

Older does not mean better. Nor does it mean more well thought out.

No seriously older editions having Cantrips not be at-will was awful game design.
Same with having to actually roll for HP at level 1.
Same with making the Wizard need more EXP to level up as it just punished the player by not only making it harder for him to level it made it easier for them to die and then it just goes and has all the powerful NPC's be those high level wizards anyways.
Its those older editions that get us the joke about wizards will always die before becoming able to shake the cosmic forces of the universe. And its not from good game design but instead a badly implemented attempt at balance.
Heck punishing groups by making levels take forever is also incredibly unsatisfying and boring unless you are providing some reason, or reward for it. And even then its not as tangible as a levelup in such a system(this idea continues in the shadow of the demonlord rant).
Balance should never be at the expense of fun

This is such an issue Shadow of the Demonlord which can best be described is if someone made 5e using the same sensibilities as people that made 2nd Edition is awful. Gear both is completely meaningless and worth its weight in gold.
So levels become hugely important for the stat boosts they provide to just marginally scrape by but they also make foes harder which only adds to the accumulation of issues.
Why?
Because if the GM is kind or a good gm they will give you the ability to get custom weapons or magic weapons or something for some added damage and/or other bonuses. Because without that you will be in trouble unless you go Fighter.
Fighter is such a favored class it is honestly ridiculous. From gaining bonus damage that is equal to the rogues sneak attack without needing advantage its silly. Without specialized gear rogues are just worse fighters. And even with said specialized gear its barely better.

Meanwhile the Priest and Mage classes?
Priest can be a buff bot to an ally after they run out of spells for healing or damage if they don't got a weapon
But the wizard? Best hope you are a race that starts with a good Agility or you are just dead wait rolling a d20 hoping for a 14+ to hit level 1 enemies. Why are you dead weight? Well you can do 1 spell that does 3d6 damage(once a day) to one target well the fighter swings a sword doing 2d6 a swing every round.

At later levels? Yeah sure the wizard can be amazing except for the fact the wizards hp is gonna be around 30 or lower(at level 10) and most of the badguys by level 4 are dealing 3d6 or more damage.
Because that is balance making it so the cosmic forces guy does one thing and then explodes violently to a stray hit.
Heck half of the high level spells are traps or just play bad and that further supplements the issue.
Or we could talk about that the best damage schools if you wanna talk damage most high level enemies are resistant, immune or they deal damage too you... let me repeat you take damage when you use the spell from your pitiful hp pool.

Sure it removes the quadratic wizard issue by making it so no one wants to be a wizard, at which point why include the option if you are so antithetical to the idea.

Telok
2019-08-06, 10:26 AM
I'v been considering doing a Paranoia hack where friend Computer is replaced by a crazed evil wizard and Alpha Complex is replaced by a megadungeon. Obviously the PCs are minions in the dungeon and one of the recurring problems is invading adventurers. I haven't figured out what to do about the mutant powers though.

Anyways, classless is where classes are the most balanced.

RedMage125
2019-08-06, 10:36 AM
D&D 4e does fit the bill for your request. I know it's been said, but as someone who ran 4e for nearly the entirety of it's 6-year run, I want to back up that claim.

In fact, inter-class balance was one of the key design points for 4e (source: 4e preview book Races&Classes). Keeping the Defender/Striker/Leader/Controller dynamic the same from level 1 all the way to 30 works. The advancement milestones (when new Encounter/Daily/Utility powers are gained) means that everyone is improving at the same rate at the same time. A PC who takes vastly inferior options is going to feel a power disparity, but those can always be re-trained. At level 3, everyone gets a new Encounter Power, and level 5, everyone gets a new Daily power.



D&D 4E entirely avoids the linear/quadratic issue, but be advised that it's primarily a miniatures skirmishing game, with somewhat less versatility than much of what you' looked at.


The bolded part here is untrue, and not and objective assessment of 4e.

COMBAT in 4e much more closely resembles a miniatures skirmish game, yes. Movement and Attack Powers use "squares" to measure distance and area (and so it presumes you use miniatures or tokens on a grid, rather than Theater of the Mind. But the edition (despite what some detractors claim) was about more than just combat.

Honestly, in many ways, my experience* with 4e was that it was much MORE versatile than, say, 3e. During my tenure as a 4e DM, I even managed to convert a few "h4ters" whose intial stance was "this game is not D&D". My players never felt like it was a "tabletop MMO", or "just about combat". True, Attack Powers fill the largest portion of the PHB, but that's because every class had multiple options at most levels, and they had to give options that scaled all the way to 30. So 4-5 options for each level at which an Encounter/Daily/Utility was gained, times 8 classes. not to mention 4 Paragaon Path Options for each Class. Less combat-focused rules were general, and for everybody, so they only needed to be printed once. There were a lot of things left out of 4e (rules for crafting items, a specific skill to operate a ship, etc), but it's fallacious to imply that those things somehow "could not" be included in the game. The intent (again, source cited is the 4e preview books which discussed the design goals) was for a lot of it to be free-form roleplaying, and to not make skills that were not related to fantasy adventuring (in a game about fantasy adventuring) somehow have to "compete" with those more useful skill when it came to allocating Trained Skills or Skill points. And that is exactly why it was not "less versatile". Let's say the party obtained a small ship, and they have to operate it to get where they're going. in 3.xe, this would be Profession (Sailor) checks. What if no one in the party had ranks in it? Well, then it's a lot of untrained skill checks, maybe with the Aid Another action, basically rolling Wisdom checks until someone finally hits the required DC a set number of times. How is that fun or exciting? Even if one party member DID have ranks in that skill, he'd be just rolling a bunch of the same check over and over while the rest of the party twiddled their thumbs or rolled to assist. 4e meanwhile, could make it a Skill Challenge for the whole party. Let's see...Primary Skills could be Nature or Perception to Navigate, Athletics for hauling the ropes, and Acrobatics for climbing around the rigging. Secondary skills would be Endurance (have everyone make a low-DC check at the top of each "round", failure doesn't count as a failure for the challenge, but imposes a -2 on next primary check) to withstand the weather, a Thievery check to tie an especially good knot (gives the next person using Athletics a +2 bonus), Heal (success undoes one person's Endurance failure), and History to read maps and charts (give a +2 bonus to the next person making a navigation check). Each 'round' of the skill challenge representing one day's worth of work, until the party gets the required number of successes to reach their destination. That's something that can reasonably get the whole group involved (even the bookish spellcaster types), and it uses the skills they've already taken as Trained Skills because they're useful in fantasy adventuring (like Athletics, Nature, History, etc).

Part of the disparity, I think, was in the people who were reading through all the rules, and looked at how mechanics like building encounters, traps, and Skill Challenges worked from the DM's perspective. See, back when I ran 3e, I had ideas about how certain game elements -like Random Encounter Generation, for example- worked. The were tables with terrain-appropriate encounters that I rolled d% on, you rolled the dice and the players had that encounter. XP for encounters was entirely based on number of creatures, CR of creatures, and also a factor of the party members' levels. 4e made it clear that there was no need for that. The DM can decide "random" encounters in advance, encounters are built using an "XP budget" (because each monster is worth a set value of XP) that one builds to thresholds set by party's level, number of PCs, and desired threshold of difficulty. Now, from the player's persepctive, there is no difference between these two styles. But 4e encouraged DMs to not be confined to think about the game world in the same way players do.

What it boils down to, really, is that the DM is privvy to all the "behind the scenes" meta-factors, and even during play, they are incredibly apparent to the DM. So a DM has built an encounter using creatures of the Soldier/Brute type, a few Artillery type, an Elite Controller(Leader) type, and a handful of Minion types, of a level close to the party's own, to make a difficult (but not "Deadly") encounter for his level 5 PCs. The players, OTOH, see an orc war band of about 10 orcs, mostly melee, with 2 archers and a spellcaster in the back. And while being aware of things like "XP budgets", being mindful of "creature types", and even tracking success/failures in Skill Challenges may have made the DM feel more consistently aware of 4e as a math and numbers balancing game, to the players it could still feel just like a D&D game of other editions.

All that said, I know it may seem like a downer to DM. I assure you it was not. It may sound odd, but 4th edition was an absolute dream to DM. Way easier than 3.0, 3.5, or 5e by comparison. To this day, I maintain that 4th Edition was the easiest to DM by far, even though as a player I would rather play 5e. And I have no problems running 5e. But 4e was leaps and bounds simpler, more streamlined, and less stressful to make when you're writing your own home campaign stuff.

*I absolutely understand that I am sharing anecdotal experience, which is not the same as objective fact. I think it's relevant, however. And it certainly shows that the idea that it's "less versatile" or "just a miniatures skirmish game" is also not an objective fact.

Ken Murikumo
2019-08-06, 10:43 AM
If you are not married to the idea of classes, Anima was a really cool system. It uses archetypes instead of classes. The system seemed mostly balanced to me when i played it (did half a campaign a few years ago). Martial characters can use magic if they want to invest in it, but they mostly get by with techniques and even build-your-own special moves. The only downside (subjective) is it feels very anime and is akin to using the tome of battle in D&D 3.5; neither of which bother me. Also, some of the artwork is kinda cringy.

But, i'll second Mutants & Masterminds. It's a classless point-buy system for superheroes. It's very easy to repurpose the game for fantasy. I ran a whole 1-1/2 year long campaign with it. If you really want some extras, Grod the Giant (im pretty sure it was Grod) remade the base D&D classes with the system. I also wrote up over 30 fantasy races using the system over just a few days.

Vhaidara
2019-08-06, 10:55 AM
Oh right, forgot to also weigh in with my own opinions. Going to second everything RedMage had to say about 4e. 4e generally gets the floor of every class high enough to contribute. Different classes have different ceilings, yes, but a lot of the time that comes down a lot more to the age of the class. The older classes (fighter, warlord, cleric, rogue, pretty much PHB1 and 2) got a MASSIVE amount of support because they were around for ages. The weaker classes tend to either be the later ones (runepriest and seeker) which just didn't get as much published material or the essentials classes, which were built on an entirely different design philosophy that wasn't really compatible with where 4e had gone. And frankly most of the eclasses can still be made to do silly powerful things, they just take a lot more finagling.

Kaptin Keen
2019-08-06, 01:45 PM
Does it have to be fantasy? Because Shadowrun and Dark Heresy kinda work.

Shadowrun is a broken mess for other reasons, but mages are by no means all powerful. Of course you need some form of protection from mana spells - but then the same can be applied to sniper rifles.

Dark Heresy actually is ... well balanced.

Jay R
2019-08-06, 01:53 PM
D&D (at least original, Basic, Advanced 1e and 2e, and 3.5e) works best at the lower levels.

So the best answer is to play from first level to about tenth or eleventh. The problems only develop above that level.

Psyren
2019-08-06, 03:42 PM
D&D (at least original, Basic, Advanced 1e and 2e, and 3.5e) works best at the lower levels.

So the best answer is to play from first level to about tenth or eleventh. The problems only develop above that level.

This is commonly known as E6/E8 (6th or 8th level respectively) to make finding games for it easier.

Jay R
2019-08-06, 04:03 PM
This is commonly known as E6/E8 (6th or 8th level respectively) to make finding games for it easier.

For original D&D, it's called "playing the game as written". Once a PC reaches "name level" (9th for a Fighting Man1, 8th for a Cleric) he1 was supposed to settle down, build a stronghold, and then let encounters come to him1, in the form of invading armies or hordes of monsters.

Wizards at name level (11th) could start making magic items. Presumably, he1 would build a lab at another PC's stronghold.

This is mostly theoretical with me. Most campaigns I played in lasted fell apart at or before that level. I had a paladin2 who built a fortress once. He had two adventures there before I graduated, but that's all.

1 Yes, I know. But that's what the rules said in 1974.

2 Paladins and Thieves were introduced in the first supplement.

Luccan
2019-08-06, 04:18 PM
The d20 base classes were fairly balanced. The advanced and prestige classes are where imbalance creeps in, but if you're looking for a fantasy feel, you could use the base classes, some Urban Arcana/d20 Past occupations, then the Shadow Chasers advanced classes (including the Mesmerist and Spiritualist from d20 Past). This will net you some low-power fantasy and you can just ignore the horror aspects of the Shadow Chasers narrative. So long as the Spiritualist and Occultist are able to research/acquire new scrolls and magic items, you basically get a Paladin/Ranger* class, a Priest, a Magic User, and the Mesmerist works for those who want built-in magic powers. There are closer equivalents to D&D classes in some of the material, but it presents the same imbalance when one player takes the Mage class and another takes Bodyguard or Infiltrator, so I'd keep to the low-power magic classes and adjust some of the mundane advanced classes to suit the setting. Some of the non-spell casting advanced classes from Urban Arcana might work as well.

*Edit: The Shadow Slayer would also require adjustment, but one could restrict what counts for its anti-Shadow abilities as is campaign appropriate. Just be careful not to nerf them into uselessness.

Psyren
2019-08-07, 12:17 AM
For original D&D, it's called "playing the game as written". Once a PC reaches "name level" (9th for a Fighting Man1, 8th for a Cleric) he1 was supposed to settle down, build a stronghold, and then let encounters come to him1, in the form of invading armies or hordes of monsters.

Yeah, was speaking more to 3.5 than the older stuff, sorry for not specifying.

Vknight
2019-08-07, 04:43 AM
Again isn't this just self-aware webcomics?

Willie the Duck
2019-08-07, 09:16 AM
What are your best experiences? I'd like a game where the different classes are smoothly on par throughout the game and preferably one where the classes have options in and out of combat from an early level.

1) On one level, the LFQW is an artefact of post-LBB OD&D (problems started showing once magic users got level 7-9 spells, making them continue as adventurers into post-name-level, while fighting men were still rewarded with the ability to become post-name-level non-adventurers) through 5e D&D/AD&D*. Most other class**-based games have some level of imbalance, as it's really hard to give out differing sets of choices and have them all come back with the same effective value, unless those choices aren't actually meaningful. However, they rarely show the exact same issues --the primary distinction being between 'fighters' and 'wizards,' and the primary complaint being that one advances pseudo-linearly and the other in some vaguely geometric rate (itself being somewhat tied to D&D's levelling mechanic). So once you step out of D&D and what I will call 'D&D-alikes,' you've probably gotten rid of that specific problem, although often you've traded it for another balance issue.
*4e is an exception to this sub-point. It does have balance problems, but pertaining to the point raised in my second point.
**Within this context, I am using 'class' as any initial character creation selection which gates you into certain build choices and out of others. So Clans in Vampire: the Masquerade, careers in Traveller, and so forth.

When it comes to overall balance, you might want to leave the class and level systems behind. Games like Fate or Savage World, or straight-up point buy games like GURPS and HERO System get rid of classes, so any person can have any specific mechanical bits and bobs, and everything advances at about the same rate. Mind you, there are still strictly-best combos (any time you can mix anything-with-anything, you run into optimal combinations), and you'll run into the case where the character you specifically want to build simply doesn't contribute at the same rate as someone else built with the same number of points, but the amount it comes up will be significantly reduced (and probably won't be along a magic-non-magic split).

2) Fundamentally, when one character 'class' is constrained to 'abiding by the laws of physics' (or perhaps the Hollywood version thereof) and another class is not so constrained, it's neigh impossible to have those two options be truly balanced. You can make what the 'magic' side be able to do still quite limited (and the constraints of physical possibility for the 'non-magic' types really lax). You can make there be a really high cost to these magical abilities (in terms of build points, or ability to contribute outside of one's magic). However, actual 'balance' is going to be a really tenuous one, and based on having a really good idea on exactly what everyone's definition of balance is, what a gaming session will look like, and what combinations are possible.

malachi
2019-08-07, 09:49 AM
Iron Kingdoms Full Metal Fantasy (and the related Iron Kingdoms Unleashed, which has the same rules but different classes, and is intended to be used to support characters with a different background) has balance between characters who use magic and those who don't (with the exception of Warcasters from IKFMF and Warlocks from IKU, but they're mostly better in combat, and its due to being the best at supporting pets, and they can get pets that are equivalent to other PCs at fighting).

The balance between magic and non-magic is done by limiting most of what magic can do to combat (with a few cases where spells can make certain skills much better), and lowering the combat power of spells (but making them usable at-will, just like non-magic combat).

The balance between classes is done by the character creation system (choose an archetype, race, and two classes) and the advancement system (at a given XP total, you get to pick a new [ability/spell from you classes, skill, or ability from your archetype], and everyone gets to choose the same type of advancement at each point, sort of like 4e).

Where there is imbalance, it comes in some characters being able to get so much Defense that they can't be hit by most adversaries (except for explosives or giant magical robots / monsters) or other characters who get so much armor that they can't be damaged by most adversaries (except by enemies built like PCs or giant magical robots / monsters).

RedMage125
2019-08-07, 12:51 PM
2) Fundamentally, when one character 'class' is constrained to 'abiding by the laws of physics' (or perhaps the Hollywood version thereof) and another class is not so constrained, it's neigh impossible to have those two options be truly balanced. You can make what the 'magic' side be able to do still quite limited (and the constraints of physical possibility for the 'non-magic' types really lax). You can make there be a really high cost to these magical abilities (in terms of build points, or ability to contribute outside of one's magic). However, actual 'balance' is going to be a really tenuous one, and based on having a really good idea on exactly what everyone's definition of balance is, what a gaming session will look like, and what combinations are possible.

Willie, you said earlier in your post that 4e DID have balance issues pursuant to the second point, but I fail to see said problems.

Even Martial classes in 4e start violating the laws of physics, less frequently in Heroic Tier, but they do all the same. Warlords can shout and "inspire" dying allies back to their feet. A Rogue can throw daggers accurately enough to strike the eyes and blind an enemy in a "close burst 3" (read as: 3x3 square), so...up to 9 enemies. With daggers (or a single dagger, if it's magical). At level 1. I remember a Paragon-Tier Fighter power that actually forces all enemies within 2 squares of the Fighter to step 2 squares closer...and then he gets a swing at all of them.

Yeah, okay, they're not slinging actual fire/ice/radiant energy at enemies, but they're also using the same comic-book-physics (even more ludicrous than Hollywood) that permit "I wiggle my fingers and flick a booger of bat poo and make an explosion".

4e does not suffer from "Linear Warriors/Quadratic Casters" at all. No one's usefulness ever takes a dip (unless you literally intentionally choose to build a terrible character). Strikers have higher damage output against a single target than anyone else, but that's literally their job. A Controller, like a wizard, might be able to keep up with Striker numbers for total damage if he exclusively uses AoEs and always gets 3+ enemies in them. But in my experience, that was rarely ever the case with wizards (or other Controllers like Invokers), not when other powers were things like "wall off enemies" or "inflict lock-down status effects" that just worked so much better with party abilities. But damage output isn't the sole factor of contribution. In 4e, wizards ALWAYS need their Defender to help protect them, even in Epic Tier. Neither Wizards, Clerics, nor Druids ever get abilties that "completely make other classes obsolete". In fact, during 4e's tenure, the Class Role that most people thought was the most superfluous was Controller (wizards, druids, invokers, psions...and seekers, but they barely count :smallwink:).

The classes are well-balanced among each other by Class Roles. That is, each Role contributes to the particular idiom of that role for all levels of play. And Classes are well-balanced among other classes of their same role. A Warden (Primal Defender) and a Fighter (Martial Defender) have similar damage output. And while a Warden may have abilites that are magical and transformative, the Fighter remains one of the "stickiest" defenders, simply because it gets a free hit -as an INTERRUPT- on any creature that tries to violate the mark. Rogues do more damage with their "striker mechanic" than Warlocks, but require Combat Advantage, Avengers (Divine Strikers) use big weapons, but instead of a damage-boosting mechanic, they get to roll the d20 twice and take the better result making them more accurate with their big weapons, meanwhile Barbarians have their "striker mechanic" folded into the attack powers themselves as extra damage, but also have defender-esque hit points. So it all comes down to the Class that someone wants to play being chosen for either aesthetics and flavor, or because the secondary features of the class being more desirable. You're playing the Leader (healer) Class? Cool, would you prefer to grant more bonuses to allies, sometimes including bonus attacks (Warlord), inflict more penalties and statuses on enemies (Bard), have a pet and do more damage than other Leaders (Shaman), or provide even more healing while being slightly tankier (Cleric)?

Vhaidara
2019-08-07, 01:19 PM
I remember a Paragon-Tier Fighter power that actually forces all enemies within 2 squares of the Fighter to step 2 squares closer...and then he gets a swing at all of them.

Heroic, actually. Level 7 Fighter Encounter power, Come And Get It, a staple of the class.

Willie the Duck
2019-08-07, 01:58 PM
Willie, you said earlier in your post that 4e DID have balance issues pursuant to the second point, but I fail to see said problems.

Even Martial classes in 4e start violating the laws of physics, less frequently in Heroic Tier, but they do all the same. Warlords can shout and "inspire" dying allies back to their feet. A Rogue can throw daggers accurately enough to strike the eyes and blind an enemy in a "close burst 3" (read as: 3x3 square), so...up to 9 enemies. With daggers (or a single dagger, if it's magical). At level 1. I remember a Paragon-Tier Fighter power that actually forces all enemies within 2 squares of the Fighter to step 2 squares closer...and then he gets a swing at all of them.

Yeah, okay, they're not slinging actual fire/ice/radiant energy at enemies, but they're also using the same comic-book-physics (even more ludicrous than Hollywood) that permit "I wiggle my fingers and flick a booger of bat poo and make an explosion".

4e does not suffer from "Linear Warriors/Quadratic Casters" at all. [/quote]

I’m having a hard time understanding where the disagreement is. You seem to be literally making the same points. 4e does not suffer from ‘Linear Warriors/Quadratic Casters,’ as I stated in my point one (and stipulated that 4e was the exception). 4e, and all other games, still have problems when the magic guy can do things that the non-magic guy can’t (fly, plane shift, and so forth, which 4e cuts back on significantly), and as I said, you can mute the effect of that by ‘mak[ing] what the 'magic' side be able to do still quite limited, and the constraints of physical possibility for the 'non-magic' types really lax’ which is what you just described.

Do you understand why it seems like you say you disagree with me, then say the exact same thing?

Psyren
2019-08-07, 02:27 PM
I’m having a hard time understanding where the disagreement is. You seem to be literally making the same points. 4e does not suffer from ‘Linear Warriors/Quadratic Casters,’ as I stated in my point one (and stipulated that 4e was the exception). 4e, and all other games, still have problems when the magic guy can do things that the non-magic guy can’t (fly, plane shift, and so forth, which 4e cuts back on significantly), and as I said, you can mute the effect of that by ‘mak[ing] what the 'magic' side be able to do still quite limited, and the constraints of physical possibility for the 'non-magic' types really lax’ which is what you just described.

Do you understand why it seems like you say you disagree with me, then say the exact same thing?

If I may, I think the issue here is the label - you're calling this a "balance problem" when it's a problem of a different sort (or may not be one at all, depending on your view.) 4e, in order to avoid LFQW, put tighter limits on some of the magical combat abilities like flight and teleportation from the previous editions, so that when they created martial versions of those abilities it wouldn't strain anyone's suspension of disbelief too far. So when a martial and a wizard can both "teleport" up to 5 squares, that isn't a balance problem (the two are balanced against each other perfectly in fact), rather it's a "satisfaction with the magic system" problem.

RedMage125
2019-08-07, 03:58 PM
Heroic, actually. Level 7 Fighter Encounter power, Come And Get It, a staple of the class.
Was it? Dang, I thought it was higher. Ah well, fixed the post.


I’m having a hard time understanding where the disagreement is. You seem to be literally making the same points. 4e does not suffer from ‘Linear Warriors/Quadratic Casters,’ as I stated in my point one (and stipulated that 4e was the exception). 4e, and all other games, still have problems when the magic guy can do things that the non-magic guy can’t (fly, plane shift, and so forth, which 4e cuts back on significantly), and as I said, you can mute the effect of that by ‘mak[ing] what the 'magic' side be able to do still quite limited, and the constraints of physical possibility for the 'non-magic' types really lax’ which is what you just described.

Do you understand why it seems like you say you disagree with me, then say the exact same thing?

You said there were "balance problems" that were "pursuant to the second point". But that second point that "magic guy can do things non-magic guy can't" is an utterly moot point for 4e, because unlike other editions, those non-magic guys are also doing things that the magic guys can't. And that was part of my point. The meat of my point was contesting that there's a "balance problem" between classes at all in 4e. And if you claim there is one at all, I question which yardstick you are using to measure this disparity.

Flight was not so easily accomplished in 4e than other editions, and casters were never basically able to have at-will flight as part of their spell list or a class ability. Teleportation (to include Plane Shifting) was solely in the purvue of Rituals in 4e. As was Divination, Magic Item Creation (and Disenchanting), and Resurrection. Yes, some Arcane, Divine, or Primal classes (mostly Controller types, maybe 1 or 2 Leaders) got Ritual Casting as a class feature, but it was available as a feat to anyone, and 4e feats were every odd level, so anyone could pick it up easily. So...how is that a disparity between "casters and non-casters" when not even all "caster" classes got it for free, and ANYONE could pick it up for a trivial feat?

And "non-caster" is an almost meaningless delineation in 4e anyway. Typically, you could only mean members of classes of the Martial power source. Which is 4 classes out of 24. And that's not counting Essentials classes, which would get even more ridiculous, since there were dual-power sourced classes that often became "quasi-magical". If I recall, Essentials had 2 Fighter classes and one Rogue, and literally everything else had magic. Rangers became Martial/Primal, we had Martial/Shadow Assassins, and I don't even remember the Elemental classes, but the disparity of number of classes that were not, in some way "magical" gets larger and larger. So, discounting the Essentials classes, 5/6ths of the classes in 4e were "magic users" in some way (yes, even Barbarians), and those pure Martial types were still considered among the best for their class roles. Rangers and Rogues are among the top for Strikers (especially after the update that made Sneak Attack 1/turn, not 1/round), Fighters are THE stickiest Defender, and Warlords have always rated high among Leader classes. In fact, a Rogue paired with a Fighter and a Lazy Warlord could have a higher DPR than any other Defender/Leader/Striker 3-man combo, if for no other reason than the Warlord always gives up hs attacks to the Rogue (something no "magic guy" can do), who then puts down additional Sneak Attacks that round, and even if that enemy tries to break mark and go after the Rogue, the Fighter will get another shot in on it before it does so.

So I'm sorry, but in addition to even finding a distinction between "caster" and "non caster" barely a distinct one in terms of mechanics at all, I certainly disagree that there's a "balance problem". Those "non-casters" may not have been hurling energy from their fingertips, but they're still Comic-Book-Style-Metahumans who either keep up with or outpace their magic-using counterparts in combat, and are just as capable of getting Ritual Caster to Teleport/Plane Shift and so on.

So...outside of rituals, what is something that "magic" characters could do in 4e that "non magic" (Martial) could not? In a manner that affects balance between classes, but not between class roles? So what does a Swordmage do that makes it "more powerful" than the Fighter? What can a Cleric do that outshines a Warlord? In what way is a Ranger inferior to other Strikers?

EDIT: Psyren may be correct. In which case, you and I are just failing to communicate properly.

Dimers
2019-08-07, 08:42 PM
Remember, this thread didn't start out as caster-vs-non, just class-vs-class. And 4e is not perfectly balanced as far as that goes. It's better than other D&Ds, and classes are all close enough that being in the same party isn't problematic, and player > build > class as always, but the fact remains that Ranger is better than Vampire.

Tvtyrant
2019-08-07, 08:51 PM
If you like D20 you could easily make everyone play a Cleric, change the fluff so that is just what people do, and then make the domains the actual classes. Merchant cleric, noble cleric, priest cleric, etc. Cleric is just a fighty guy with a good magic system, now you have an easy interbalanced game with plenty of character options.

Particle_Man
2019-08-07, 08:57 PM
I'v been considering doing a Paranoia hack where friend Computer is replaced by a crazed evil wizard and Alpha Complex is replaced by a megadungeon. Obviously the PCs are minions in the dungeon and one of the recurring problems is invading adventurers. I haven't figured out what to do about the mutant powers though.

Anyways, classless is where classes are the most balanced.

Change the wizard to a priestess of Lolth and make the pcs all drow and it maps on fairly well!

Skylivedk
2019-08-08, 05:23 AM
First of all: thank you to everybody and sorry for the late response. I've had some pretty crazy work days.

I really appreciate the amount of quality feedback. I'll try to answer almost everyone, so pardon the Great Wall of Text.


Exalted is not going to do what you have intended. If anything, it will be actively worse. There is absolutely no balance concept between the Solars, the Lunars, and anything else. There isn't really much balance concept between different charms available in Exalted. World of Darkness in general doesn't tend towards balance. And to answer your question, Scion: Hero/Demigod/God (or the recent re-release, Scion: Origin/Hero from Onyx Path) is the lower-powered fantasy version of Exalted. You play as children of gods, starting out as basically tough mortals and gradually getting more god powers as you progress.

I don't mind if I can isolate my players from a specific race (i.e. they're all lunars, go loonie). It sounds like Scion might be more to my group's looking. Is it as streamlined as I've heard the latest iteration of Exalted?


Agreed, do NOT go into Exalted or the NWod think its balanced at all. Solars are the intended minmax story-breaker Exalted and the most raw numbers in terms of stats. the rest of the splats are all about figuring how you can beat those guys without having the same amount of raw power and is intended to be unfair.

Thank you for the comment. It helped me inform my previous answer.


Out of what I've tried, D&D 4e and 13th Age sound best for you, and GURPS wouldn't be awful but doesn't really have classes. In 4e, martial classes are strong in every combat role except "controller" and have every bit as much noncombat ability as any spellcaster. In 13th Age, almost everything outside combat comes down to convincing the GM that some aspect of your background is relevant, and all classes have solid combat options.

I've read all of the core book of 13th Age. I've not tried GURPS; mostly because it seems too daunting and complex for me to pitch it to my usual group. How do you find the difference between 13th Age and 4e? We tend to use grids (often just white background and random objects to illustrate landscape etc)


Have you considered Zweihander? It's a sort of fantasy heartbreaker/ retro-clone of Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay 2e, with more modern design elements. One of the oft-repeated criticisms of WFRP 2e was balance issues. I'm not sure to what extent those issues have been fixed in the 4th Edition of WFRP, but Zweihander was initially written in the void between 2nd and 4th, when many fans were turned off by 3e's radically different mechanics. And Zweihander was specifically designed using a "Bounded Accuracy" model (there was a statistician involved in the development), intended to fix the balance issues of its parent game's early editions. Character advancement is pretty even and deliberate. It's low fantasy, with more down to earth characters (i.e., not overpowered) but it still has magic, fantasy races (only if you want them), gods and monsters.

I've just started playing it (one session in) and I like it.

Based on what you've said you're looking for, I think Zweihander ticks the following boxes:

"a tabletop RPG that didn't suffer from the Quadratic Casters and Linear Warriors syndrome" - check, even and deliberate advancement

"slightly lower fantasy; ie you're not divine from the get-go, but you still got dwarves and elves" - check, characters start out a little more powerful than in WFRP, but still weaker than in many elfgames

"a game where the different classes are smoothly on par throughout the game" - check, bounded accuracy

'preferably one where the classes have options in and out of combat from an early level" - check, it's a skill-based system

Hope this helps!

I've looked at WFRP 4e, but not Zweihander yet. Your description has me intrigued. How does the following take compare to 5e?:
- building encounters? (DM)
- running a combat? (Time, math, rule mastery; players and DM)
- social encounters
- exploration
- politics/world building/business



Regarding Exalted: it depends on what you consider the class. I'd say it's reasonably balanced if you consider each exalt type to be a different game, not a different class, and look at the subdivisions within the Exaltations as your classes. So rather than compare Solar to Dragonblood, you compare the Night Caste to the Dawn, or the Fire Aspect to the Wood Aspect. And on THAT level I think Exalted IS one of the better balanced games, if for no other reason than because the classes are more like archetypes and have relatively few abilities that the others don't.
Thank you! You also helped me inform the first answer on the topic. What's the smoothest way of transitioning 5e players to Exalted?


Is this the opportune moment to point out that older editions of D&D usually had the maybe-not-quite-quadratic utility Fighters lugging around the useless Wizards? Often for years, before the Wizard actually got to the point of being worth having along?

I am not fond of balance that involves: "You're mostly useless for 20 sessions (a year irl) save then I'm useless until the campaign stops".


If you are not married to the idea of classes, Anima was a really cool system. It uses archetypes instead of classes. The system seemed mostly balanced to me when i played it (did half a campaign a few years ago). Martial characters can use magic if they want to invest in it, but they mostly get by with techniques and even build-your-own special moves. The only downside (subjective) is it feels very anime and is akin to using the tome of battle in D&D 3.5; neither of which bother me. Also, some of the artwork is kinda cringy.

But, i'll second Mutants & Masterminds. It's a classless point-buy system for superheroes. It's very easy to repurpose the game for fantasy. I ran a whole 1-1/2 year long campaign with it. If you really want some extras, Grod the Giant (im pretty sure it was Grod) remade the base D&D classes with the system. I also wrote up over 30 fantasy races using the system over just a few days.

Do you have links for the redo of the classes? I read about Mutants and Masterminds. It seems the point buy system is fairly hackable by using Limit functions on high value abilities (Compel with limits give you a better budget than Impair... Or what something like it). I picked that up from a class guide. I'm fine with classless and anime inspiration. I'm not sure how my group is. I know fifty percent would be all for the anime inspiration. I'm pretty sure one of five wouldn't like it.


The d20 base classes were fairly balanced. The advanced and prestige classes are where imbalance creeps in, but if you're looking for a fantasy feel, you could use the base classes, some Urban Arcana/d20 Past occupations, then the Shadow Chasers advanced classes (including the Mesmerist and Spiritualist from d20 Past). This will net you some low-power fantasy and you can just ignore the horror aspects of the Shadow Chasers narrative. So long as the Spiritualist and Occultist are able to research/acquire new scrolls and magic items, you basically get a Paladin/Ranger* class, a Priest, a Magic User, and the Mesmerist works for those who want built-in magic powers. There are closer equivalents to D&D classes in some of the material, but it presents the same imbalance when one player takes the Mage class and another takes Bodyguard or Infiltrator, so I'd keep to the low-power magic classes and adjust some of the mundane advanced classes to suit the setting. Some of the non-spell casting advanced classes from Urban Arcana might work as well.

*Edit: The Shadow Slayer would also require adjustment, but one could restrict what counts for its anti-Shadow abilities as is campaign appropriate. Just be careful not to nerf them into uselessness.

D20? It's that a game name and not just a reference to all the games based on the d20 die?


Iron Kingdoms Full Metal Fantasy (and the related Iron Kingdoms Unleashed, which has the same rules but different classes, and is intended to be used to support characters with a different background) has balance between characters who use magic and those who don't (with the exception of Warcasters from IKFMF and Warlocks from IKU, but they're mostly better in combat, and its due to being the best at supporting pets, and they can get pets that are equivalent to other PCs at fighting).

The balance between magic and non-magic is done by limiting most of what magic can do to combat (with a few cases where spells can make certain skills much better), and lowering the combat power of spells (but making them usable at-will, just like non-magic combat).

The balance between classes is done by the character creation system (choose an archetype, race, and two classes) and the advancement system (at a given XP total, you get to pick a new [ability/spell from you classes, skill, or ability from your archetype], and everyone gets to choose the same type of advancement at each point, sort of like 4e).

Where there is imbalance, it comes in some characters being able to get so much Defense that they can't be hit by most adversaries (except for explosives or giant magical robots / monsters) or other characters who get so much armor that they can't be damaged by most adversaries (except by enemies built like PCs or giant magical robots / monsters).

So remove the pet class and it works? How is it different from 4e in feel and gameplay?


Willie, you said earlier in your post that 4e DID have balance issues pursuant to the second point, but I fail to see said problems.

Even Martial classes in 4e start violating the laws of physics, less frequently in Heroic Tier, but they do all the same. Warlords can shout and "inspire" dying allies back to their feet. A Rogue can throw daggers accurately enough to strike the eyes and blind an enemy in a "close burst 3" (read as: 3x3 square), so...up to 9 enemies. With daggers (or a single dagger, if it's magical). At level 1. I remember a Paragon-Tier Fighter power that actually forces all enemies within 2 squares of the Fighter to step 2 squares closer...and then he gets a swing at all of them.

Yeah, okay, they're not slinging actual fire/ice/radiant energy at enemies, but they're also using the same comic-book-physics (even more ludicrous than Hollywood) that permit "I wiggle my fingers and flick a booger of bat poo and make an explosion".

4e does not suffer from "Linear Warriors/Quadratic Casters" at all. No one's usefulness ever takes a dip (unless you literally intentionally choose to build a terrible character). Strikers have higher damage output against a single target than anyone else, but that's literally their job. A Controller, like a wizard, might be able to keep up with Striker numbers for total damage if he exclusively uses AoEs and always gets 3+ enemies in them. But in my experience, that was rarely ever the case with wizards (or other Controllers like Invokers), not when other powers were things like "wall off enemies" or "inflict lock-down status effects" that just worked so much better with party abilities. But damage output isn't the sole factor of contribution. In 4e, wizards ALWAYS need their Defender to help protect them, even in Epic Tier. Neither Wizards, Clerics, nor Druids ever get abilties that "completely make other classes obsolete". In fact, during 4e's tenure, the Class Role that most people thought was the most superfluous was Controller (wizards, druids, invokers, psions...and seekers, but they barely count :smallwink:).

The classes are well-balanced among each other by Class Roles. That is, each Role contributes to the particular idiom of that role for all levels of play. And Classes are well-balanced among other classes of their same role. A Warden (Primal Defender) and a Fighter (Martial Defender) have similar damage output. And while a Warden may have abilites that are magical and transformative, the Fighter remains one of the "stickiest" defenders, simply because it gets a free hit -as an INTERRUPT- on any creature that tries to violate the mark. Rogues do more damage with their "striker mechanic" than Warlocks, but require Combat Advantage, Avengers (Divine Strikers) use big weapons, but instead of a damage-boosting mechanic, they get to roll the d20 twice and take the better result making them more accurate with their big weapons, meanwhile Barbarians have their "striker mechanic" folded into the attack powers themselves as extra damage, but also have defender-esque hit points. So it all comes down to the Class that someone wants to play being chosen for either aesthetics and flavor, or because the secondary features of the class being more desirable. You're playing the Leader (healer) Class? Cool, would you prefer to grant more bonuses to allies, sometimes including bonus attacks (Warlord), inflict more penalties and statuses on enemies (Bard), have a pet and do more damage than other Leaders (Shaman), or provide even more healing while being slightly tankier (Cleric)?

I'm ok with Hollywood heroics if I'm playing a magical campaign.

And overall, yes I'm looking for fantasy based games at the moment :) - group preference. Personally I'd be super happy to run super heroes (especially in Worm's universe... Or maybe a gritty Marvel spinoff) or Sci-Fi

Vhaidara
2019-08-08, 05:42 AM
Thank you! You also helped me inform the first answer on the topic. What's the smoothest way of transitioning 5e players to Exalted?

Um...Well, I don't know a lot about 5e, it's never been my cup of tea. But from what little I do know, you need to expect a LOT of culture shock. The baseline assumptions of the systems are extremely different, especially if you start into Exalted with Solars (which, since they're the exalt type in the core book, most groups will).

The two systems have as close to 0 common ground as I can think of, even the method of resolution is completely different (d20+mods vs rolling a bunch of d10s and counting up the results for 7+). And the fluff assumptions are miles apart. Exalts are significantly stronger and capable of things that are comletely off base within 5e. For example, my first ever real fight in Exalted was with my Brawl focused Dawn Caste, and it ended when I punched an invading war elephant across the battlefield into another war elephant. This was on the equivalent of a level 1 character made by a first time player.

So I think the first thing to make very clear if you try Exalted is that this is a VERY different game from 5e. If you have a crazy idea and you think you have the means to achieve it, go for it

Dimers
2019-08-08, 05:47 AM
I've read all of the core book of 13th Age. I've not tried GURPS; mostly because it seems too daunting and complex for me to pitch it to my usual group. How do you find the difference between 13th Age and 4e? We tend to use grids (often just white background and random objects to illustrate landscape etc)

Funny you should ask, since I wrote about that a couple days ago ... (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?594702-13th-Age-What-s-It-Like)

Briefly put, I really enjoy 13th Age with a Grade-A gamemaster, and I really enjoy 4e all the time. 4e has the fiddly bits I like.

Knaight
2019-08-08, 06:16 AM
If you're looking for generally decent magic/nonmagic Reign actually has you covered pretty well. Magic is powerful and can do really cool stuff (the spell lists range from solid to inspired), but it's also pretty resource intensive on the character side - meaning that you're giving up being good at a couple of things. Now might not be the best time to get into it though, a 2nd edition is imminent. Ish.


The two systems have as close to 0 common ground as I can think of, even the method of resolution is completely different (d20+mods vs rolling a bunch of d10s and counting up the results for 7+). And the fluff assumptions are miles apart.

I'm actually going to push back on both significantly. Sure, the core mechanics differ, and they're both games with specific settings and mechanics that fit their specific settings beyond core resolution. That said, they're both pretty mechanically traditional - GM and player roles are highly traditional, both have very limited direct narrative interference which takes the form of points spent to alter rolls, both are adventuring focused, both lend themselves well to a traditional scene structure, etc. We're not exactly looking at troupe play, rotating GMs, player side narrative claims, GMless gaming, or other weirdness. We're definitely not getting into the really structurally weird where you start doing nonchronological timeline editing with sporadic scenes put throughout.

Similarly, sure, the settings are different. Both are fantasy settings featuring highly powerful beings in a world full of ordinary people though, and while Exalted has more power it's still generally fairly conventional power in a lot of ways. Cutting through a mountain isn't fundamentally different than cutting through an iron bar, whereras it is different from something like Polaris/Nobilis, where the actions of the extremely powerful beings tend to be more along the lines of "decorporializing the concept of shadows by making light diffuse everywhere, so as to shift the power of the beings of sun and shadow". Even steering clear from the weird end of the hobby the D&D-Exalted shift is way smaller than something like D&D-Eclipse Phase, D&D-Transhuman Space, or D&D-Sigmata.

Vhaidara
2019-08-08, 06:35 AM
player side narrative claims

The rest is fair, but this is untrue. One of the primary functions of the Lore Ability in Exalted is to Introduce a Fact, and I've seen some truly terrifying usages of that, up to and including a fellow PC introducing the title of a Second Circle Demon (the equivalent of an archifend) and the ability to steal said name upon defeating them, which essentially gave him command of an entire breed of First Circle demons

Ken Murikumo
2019-08-08, 08:03 AM
Do you have links for the redo of the classes? I read about Mutants and Masterminds. It seems the point buy system is fairly hackable by using Limit functions on high value abilities (Compel with limits give you a better budget than Impair... Or what something like it). I picked that up from a class guide. I'm fine with classless and anime inspiration. I'm not sure how my group is. I know fifty percent would be all for the anime inspiration. I'm pretty sure one of five wouldn't like it.


It was Grod: Be sure to give him props for the work. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?279503-D-amp-D-in-M-amp-M-a-new-approach-to-rebalancing-3-5-PF)

My approach to races was different. I wrote up 30 something and used 20 points each with a little DM FIAT. I can post a link later, if anyone is interested (i'm at work right now).


As for all the anime stuff, it's a different system called "Anima". It's a Spanish system (i think) so there are a few... bugs... in the translation, but overall i quite enjoyed the fluff and system in general. We did make a few tweaks, though; the biggest being we roll initiative only once at the beginning of combat. Vanilla, the system will have you rolling each round and that takes time.

RedMage125
2019-08-08, 09:35 AM
Remember, this thread didn't start out as caster-vs-non, just class-vs-class. And 4e is not perfectly balanced as far as that goes. It's better than other D&Ds, and classes are all close enough that being in the same party isn't problematic, and player > build > class as always, but the fact remains that Ranger is better than Vampire.

I wasn't including the Essentials classes, of which everything in Heroes of Shadow/Feywild/Elemental Chaos are a part of*. Namely because I never really played with them ever. I've heard that one could play a PHB1/2/3 class alongside an Essentials classes, but I never knew anyone to play them.

But yes, Vampire is generally considered a sub-par Striker, as is the Shroud Assassin. My point is that in 4e only comparisons between other classes of the same role are relevant to 4e. Vampire may be sub par to a Warlock/Rogue/Ranger/etc, but how would one even compare it to a Druid? To a Battlemind? They don't. Comparisons between classes are really only valid within Class Roles, and while Striker Class A might be better at X than Striker Class B, B is better at Y. Usually, people look to "secondary roles" as they were called, to more clearly delineate this. Barbarians, for example, had the HP and healing surges to be backup Defenders (and even had some powers that encourages enemies to target them). Paladins (and some varieties of Warden) passed out enough healing to act as Secondary Leaders. So the "class-vs-class" comparison often was a matter of preference, instead of "Class A does so many things better than Class B".

And there was a bit of "caster-vs-non" in the OP, because the OP was specifically trying to avoid "Linear Fighter, Quadratic Wizard". I think 4e does a great job in not only making characters who aren't "spellcasters" equal to their more [overtly] magic-using counterparts, but removing the overpowered nature of magic in general for the whole system. A Swordmage, for example, is casting spells and using defensive magicks and wards to protect his allies, and can do some really cool stuff. A Fighter does the same thing through weapon attacks, but still accomplishes things like a comic-book-metahuman. Fighters are generally considered to have one of the best marking mechanics and punishments of all Defenders, but Swordmages are still cool and effective because they can teleport and do energy damage.

*Even though some of them are AEDU classes, but so was the Mage in Essentials. Heroes of Shadow also gave us new subclasses for the Hexblade (Essentials Warlock), and the Blackguard more closely resembles the Essentials Paladin than anything else. Also none of the PHB1/2/3 classes had mixed power sources like the ones in Feywild and Elemental books, so most people generally view them as "Essentials classes".

malachi
2019-08-08, 10:21 AM
So remove the pet class and it works? How is it different from 4e in feel and gameplay?

Yeah, if you remove the two main pet classes, the game is as balanced as the characters want. One caveat is that it is possible for one character two take two careers that don't have any combat capability but have lots of social / skill utility, and another two take two highly synergistic combat careers but have low social / skill utility. However, it should be pretty obvious when they're doing that (i.e. Investigator|Thief has lots of skills, but has almost no abilities that improve combat, vs Knight|Man-At-Arms which gives access to lots of tanking and melee damage dealing abilities).

IKRPG and IKU are pretty different from 4e on both counts.

In terms of feel, your characters have a deeper connection to the setting from even just character creation. Each character starts with 2 careers, and the list includes nobility, highly specialized elite units of two different militaries, and racially locked careers with huge cultural connections. Iron Kingdoms is also really setting-specific, which could be a turn-off for many people, and is specifically steampunk (likely a bit lower on the fantastical end of steampunk than you may be assuming, though).

The gameplay is pretty different for several reasons. IK uses 2d6 (with occasional things that add additional d6's) as the rolling mechanism, while 4e uses a d20 for attacks/abilities and a variety of other dice for effects and damage. This gives a bit more consistency to rolls in IK, and makes for a much smaller range of modifiers (minimum bonus is +3, maximum bonus at the starting tier is typically +7, and the maximum is something like +11 at the top tier of play).

Combat feels different as well, partly because a character who makes lots of weak attacks in IK is actually better against some opponents and weaker against others than a character who makes a single strong attack. Additionally, it's a gridless game with free movement (so you'll need a couple of rulers / tape measures to play). Combat is also much, much faster. Everything has less HP compared to the amount of damage dealt (an average starting PC should be able to kill at least one average adversary per activation), and the game rewards kills / crits / GM-defined-awesomeness with Feat Points that can be spent by PCs to do more things, mitigate damage, or be better (and are equally useful in and out of combat).

In 4e, I played a hybrid wizard|swordmage, and combat typically went "This is the best daily power to use this turn. And now, I'll just burn through every encounter power that seems moderately relevant", and combats needed to last at least 4 or 5 rounds in order to even feel like there was a chance to be cool. In IK, a hard 2 round combat could result in one PC going down, getting stabilized, and the rest of the PCs killing off the opposition.

One big thing to note is that there is very, very, very little magical healing in the game. In fact, there's one spell available to one career in IKRPG that will revive someone who died in the previous round (and has a greater chance of causing permanent issues the more times it's used), and another spell in IKU that revives someone (but takes several days to bring the person back to life). Non-magical healing is present, however (Feat Points can be used to heal, and characters naturally heal after combat and over time). Also, there's something of a death spiral for PCs, the pets, and important enemies.

Luccan
2019-08-08, 12:08 PM
D20? It's that a game name and not just a reference to all the games based on the d20 die?


During the 3.0 era, WotC decided they wanted to tap the urban fantasy market. Instead of giving it a unique name, they called it d20 Modern. They're basically modifies 3.X rules. They produced several other books using d20 as a prefix, same system but set in different eras or using specific campaign ideas. The modification actually resulted in base classes that wouldn't overshadow each other, and their Shadowchasers setting (which really only got developed in d20 Modern and d20 Past) has advanced classes that would be most balanced against the mundane advanced classes, while still being magical. Thus they'd work fine for a low-power fantasy game, with minimal adjustments.

Koeh
2019-08-08, 01:36 PM
I expect I might have some backlash on this, but I just can't resist suggesting my system of choice for this and many other problems: Rule of Cool's Legend. (http://www.ruleofcool.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Legend-1.1.pdf)

The consensus seems to be that (at least with just the base book) Mundane types tend to be a strong option over casters due to a reduction in overall caster power, and increase in reach, mobility and expanded options for all characters. The 3 Track with Full buy-in system, in my experience, is a fun and diverse way to make viable and interesting classes of your own design. I've been working on the monster manual, so it's more of a complete game system (I know that was the biggest complaint of the original system).

For those who don't know, Legend was started here on this forum. Unfortunately, it's been officially dead for quite a few years, but I like still working on it in my free time. Each class is divided into 3 tracks of 7 abilities. Arranged into fast medium and slow tracks to determine to order, each track grants you 1 ability every 3 levels, with med and fast tracks granting 2 at level 1. It ends out that each track grants 7 abilities over 20 levels. You may multiclass once freely, getting rid of one track of abilities for another class' track of abilities or a track of abilities tied to a race, or a track that's separate from anything. A feat allows you to multiclass once more.

That's of course what the rules officially are. I personally suggest allowing free multiclassing/point buy classes (Details in Monster manual pg 145), I find that allows more players to find that combo that suits them.

Willie the Duck
2019-08-08, 02:17 PM
EDIT: Psyren may be correct. In which case, you and I are just failing to communicate properly.

I’d bet strongly on this option, as it really seems like we’re discussing apples and oranges here.


You said there were "balance problems" that were "pursuant to the second point". But that second point that "magic guy can do things non-magic guy can't" is an utterly moot point for 4e, because unlike other editions, those non-magic guys are also doing things that the magic guys can't. And that was part of my point. The meat of my point was contesting that there's a "balance problem" between classes at all in 4e. And if you claim there is one at all, I question which yardstick you are using to measure this disparity.

My second point did not conform to the class distinction. That was entirely encompasses in my first point. The distinction in the second point is between those who can do “Magic” (not D&D spells) and those who cannot. If one character can raise the dead or traverse the planes and another cannot, that is a serious problem for trying to balance the two individuals. D&D 4e doesn’t change that. It almost can’t. It obviates it between classes, by making all the classes have the same access to such abilities (by making them rituals, which any class can get), and that solves the inter-class balance(as I have repeatedly affirmed, and explained as part of my first point), but not balance between people who can break the basic laws of reality, and those who cannot (my second).

RedMage125
2019-08-08, 03:55 PM
I’d bet strongly on this option, as it really seems like we’re discussing apples and oranges here.



My second point did not conform to the class distinction. That was entirely encompasses in my first point. The distinction in the second point is between those who can do “Magic” (not D&D spells) and those who cannot. If one character can raise the dead or traverse the planes and another cannot, that is a serious problem for trying to balance the two individuals. D&D 4e doesn’t change that. It almost can’t. It obviates it between classes, by making all the classes have the same access to such abilities (by making them rituals, which any class can get), and that solves the inter-class balance(as I have repeatedly affirmed, and explained as part of my first point), but not balance between people who can break the basic laws of reality, and those who cannot (my second).

Ah. I perceived that you were still saying that there was a "balance problem" due to those classes who could do "magic" vis those who could not.

Because that's not really a point of balance when the Martial Power Source classes were still breaking the basic laws of reality anyway. At some point, it boils down to more of a distinction between "do you target NADs and do energy damage?", or "do you target AC and do piercing/slashing/bludgeoning damage?". After all, an "imbalance" that has become entirely toothless and meaningless isn't really much of one at all. What you're describing is just narrative "fluff" of whether or not a character is "magical" as perceived by the world.

Gringnr
2019-08-09, 12:48 AM
I've looked at WFRP 4e, but not Zweihander yet. Your description has me intrigued. How does the following take compare to 5e?:
- building encounters? (DM)
- running a combat? (Time, math, rule mastery; players and DM)
- social encounters
- exploration
- politics/world building/business





I'm afraid I haven't played 5e, so I can't really compare the two. But I have asked some people on the Grim & Perilous Studios Discord. They had the following to say:



on building encounters:

"Generally easier because monsters don't give XP so you only need to consider Risk Factor (kind of like Hit Dice, a measure of formidability)"


on running a combat:

"Slightly harder because it's much more in-depth"


on social encounters:

"Much more detailed, but it's compared to D&D so that's a low bar"


on exploration:

"Not that detailed, though travel itself and weather are well-covered"



on Politics/world building/business:

"Actually possible because your characters can be built for something other than murder"





Now, I will try to address your questions, but sadly I cannot do it relative to 5e, only on the merits of Zweihander itself. Still, I hope it is helpful.



on building encounters:

The Zweihander core rulebook is nearly 700 pages. It includes a full bestiary, rules for scaling creatures up or down for customization according to your needs, morale, chases, full price lists for all kinds of things, services, whatever. Each creature is rated using a Threat Level.


on running a combat:

It's an exclusion based system, so there is a core mechanic that everything builds off of. The exclusions are usually small individually, but stack together in interesting ways. I found combat to be quick and smooth once you internalize the Qualities of the different weapons (24 in all, each changes how a weapon affects its target, and some weapons have more than one), and the possible Combat Actions (30 in all). There are no "rounds", only turns, and initiative/attack/resolution is all straightforward. Damage is on a "track" system rather than straight Hit Points. I consider it medium crunch with only simple addition. Players really only need to know their Weapon Qualities. I print out the single page of combat actions and place them on the table for everyone's reference.


on social encounters:

There is a whole set of rules (using the core mechanic) for Social Intrigue and interaction, which takes into account Social Class, Alignment, etc. Characters have earned Reputation Points which may be permanently expended during these interactions.


on exploration:

After the chase rules, there is a section on overland exploration, travel, weather, distances and how to integrate these into your game so that it isn't just "OK, you travel three days to blah blah blah, now what?"


on politics/world building/business

There are rules for commerce, trade, buying, selling and haggling. There is a brief section on world building and politic, but Zweihander claims to have "no implied setting". The need to steer clear of Games Workshop's IP may be a factor here. Much of the setting is implied throughout the text, enough for me, but since you specifically asked about it, it may run a bit thin in this department for you. There are four campaign/setting outlines, each containing three adventure seeds (though the book does feature a full-length adventure not set in any of these). Many players devise their own settings, or seem to be using WFRP materials. I have done both.




Hope this helps!

Skylivedk
2019-08-10, 03:12 AM
I'm afraid I haven't played 5e, so I can't really compare the two. But I have asked some people on the Grim & Perilous Studios Discord. They had the following to say:



on building encounters:

"Generally easier because monsters don't give XP so you only need to consider Risk Factor (kind of like Hit Dice, a measure of formidability)"


on running a combat:

"Slightly harder because it's much more in-depth"


on social encounters:

"Much more detailed, but it's compared to D&D so that's a low bar"


on exploration:

"Not that detailed, though travel itself and weather are well-covered"



on Politics/world building/business:

"Actually possible because your characters can be built for something other than murder"





Now, I will try to address your questions, but sadly I cannot do it relative to 5e, only on the merits of Zweihander itself. Still, I hope it is helpful.



on building encounters:

The Zweihander core rulebook is nearly 700 pages. It includes a full bestiary, rules for scaling creatures up or down for customization according to your needs, morale, chases, full price lists for all kinds of things, services, whatever. Each creature is rated using a Threat Level.


on running a combat:

It's an exclusion based system, so there is a core mechanic that everything builds off of. The exclusions are usually small individually, but stack together in interesting ways. I found combat to be quick and smooth once you internalize the Qualities of the different weapons (24 in all, each changes how a weapon affects its target, and some weapons have more than one), and the possible Combat Actions (30 in all). There are no "rounds", only turns, and initiative/attack/resolution is all straightforward. Damage is on a "track" system rather than straight Hit Points. I consider it medium crunch with only simple addition. Players really only need to know their Weapon Qualities. I print out the single page of combat actions and place them on the table for everyone's reference.


on social encounters:

There is a whole set of rules (using the core mechanic) for Social Intrigue and interaction, which takes into account Social Class, Alignment, etc. Characters have earned Reputation Points which may be permanently expended during these interactions.


on exploration:

After the chase rules, there is a section on overland exploration, travel, weather, distances and how to integrate these into your game so that it isn't just "OK, you travel three days to blah blah blah, now what?"


on politics/world building/business

There are rules for commerce, trade, buying, selling and haggling. There is a brief section on world building and politic, but Zweihander claims to have "no implied setting". The need to steer clear of Games Workshop's IP may be a factor here. Much of the setting is implied throughout the text, enough for me, but since you specifically asked about it, it may run a bit thin in this department for you. There are four campaign/setting outlines, each containing three adventure seeds (though the book does feature a full-length adventure not set in any of these). Many players devise their own settings, or seem to be using WFRP materials. I have done both.




Hope this helps!

Thanks! Great help. Have you tried 4e WFRP? I'd guess that to be the main competitor. Your description has put Zweihander in my top two for gritty fantasy trpgs

MeeposFire
2019-08-10, 04:09 AM
I wasn't including the Essentials classes, of which everything in Heroes of Shadow/Feywild/Elemental Chaos are a part of*. Namely because I never really played with them ever. I've heard that one could play a PHB1/2/3 class alongside an Essentials classes, but I never knew anyone to play them.

But yes, Vampire is generally considered a sub-par Striker, as is the Shroud Assassin. My point is that in 4e only comparisons between other classes of the same role are relevant to 4e. Vampire may be sub par to a Warlock/Rogue/Ranger/etc, but how would one even compare it to a Druid? To a Battlemind? They don't. Comparisons between classes are really only valid within Class Roles, and while Striker Class A might be better at X than Striker Class B, B is better at Y. Usually, people look to "secondary roles" as they were called, to more clearly delineate this. Barbarians, for example, had the HP and healing surges to be backup Defenders (and even had some powers that encourages enemies to target them). Paladins (and some varieties of Warden) passed out enough healing to act as Secondary Leaders. So the "class-vs-class" comparison often was a matter of preference, instead of "Class A does so many things better than Class B".

And there was a bit of "caster-vs-non" in the OP, because the OP was specifically trying to avoid "Linear Fighter, Quadratic Wizard". I think 4e does a great job in not only making characters who aren't "spellcasters" equal to their more [overtly] magic-using counterparts, but removing the overpowered nature of magic in general for the whole system. A Swordmage, for example, is casting spells and using defensive magicks and wards to protect his allies, and can do some really cool stuff. A Fighter does the same thing through weapon attacks, but still accomplishes things like a comic-book-metahuman. Fighters are generally considered to have one of the best marking mechanics and punishments of all Defenders, but Swordmages are still cool and effective because they can teleport and do energy damage.

*Even though some of them are AEDU classes, but so was the Mage in Essentials. Heroes of Shadow also gave us new subclasses for the Hexblade (Essentials Warlock), and the Blackguard more closely resembles the Essentials Paladin than anything else. Also none of the PHB1/2/3 classes had mixed power sources like the ones in Feywild and Elemental books, so most people generally view them as "Essentials classes".

The classes in the essentials books and many of the later class actually work well with the other classes and often will appear to work better in the hands of people that do not really know the optimization game.

Those classes tend to have higher floors and lower ceilings than the original set of classes. They were also an important step in that it showed they were starting to really experiment with class design which at that point was a good idea.

If you want to let them have a higher ceiling just let those classes take any class encounter power rather than the standard power strikes and you will find that they work pretty well on the whole. I actually prefer a number of classes that way since I was never a big fan of daily powers but really like encounter powers (a slayer is actually a top tier striker by the way and is an essentials fighter so even by current RAW you can make some top tier stuff but yeah they are not all original ranger level so to speak).

Even classes like the vampire (which is seen by many to be one of the lower tier in power) do pretty well if the game is run by the expectations of the designers. They will probably be pretty solid in most games and if you have a group that is very average in optimization skill I have seen groups who think they deal a crazy amount of damage. This is due to how the vampire is designed to have a higher floor but it lacks options to make it truly crazy so low optimization groups think more highly of it than say a high optimization group which will find it does not keep up as much. That said the original ranger can have the opposite problem I have seen groups that thought the ranger was terrible because they did not know how to pick the best powers and so it felt kind of lacking but of course if you know what you are doing the ranger will destroy all sorts of stuff.



To me the only class I find truly disappointing in general is the binder warlock. Not because of its power level but that it is not useful to have as a standard warlock gets to take its powers if you wanted them and its role of controller is delivered almost entirely by powers rather than class features so the standard warlock can easily take controller powers no problem and be that controller and still get its striker goodies but a binder does not get those striker class features even if it somehow took those striker powers since striker abilities are class features and not just powers (though powers are often the more powerful of the two in the long run).


Unless your group is high optimization every class can hit the marks the game designers want them too which we can say is not really the case with all the classes in 3e (though I will say the original assassin is kind of hard to pull off due to how strange it is). If you are in low or middling optimization folks the essentials classes actually look strong and are easy to use. If you have high optimization then yea some classes do falter a bit more so in the striker and controller roles (leaders are almost all really good with the possible exception of sentinel druid which is just a solid but not exemplary character that is more versatile but lacks powerful leader tricks, and then you have defenders which are mostly good though not quite as across the board good as the leader classes generally are).

Quertus
2019-08-10, 10:35 AM
Unless your group is high optimization every class can hit the marks the game designers want them too which we can say is not really the case with all the classes in 3e

By which you mean, "because, in 3e, every class can hit the mark, even if your group is playing high optimization", right?

Because, in 3e, we've got a level 1 Commoner soloing the Tarrasque, so, if you can't keep up with the Joneses in 3e, that's on you.

Gringnr
2019-08-10, 12:57 PM
Thanks! Great help. Have you tried 4e WFRP? I'd guess that to be the main competitor. Your description has put Zweihander in my top two for gritty fantasy trpgs

I have not played WFRP 4e, but playing Zweihänder has given me an interest in it, so I bought the PDF, and have been looking it over. I haven't really made a deep dive into it yet, though.

I don't know about Cubicle 7, but I can say that the author of Zweihänder is a HUGE WFRP fan, so I'm not sure he sees it as "competition" so much as a different take.

I hope you like the game, it's one of the few I've seen that can do "grit" without bogging down.

MeeposFire
2019-08-10, 01:56 PM
The part about D20 I thought was talking about 3e style games in general but I now see we are being a bit more specific than that.

Pauly
2019-08-10, 09:56 PM
Hello Playground,

I've been nearly obsessed with finding a tabletop RPG that didn't suffer from the Quadratic Casters and Linear Warriors syndrome. I've not really found it yet.

I've looked at:
D&D 3x & 5e
Pathfinder 1e & 2e
Hackmaster
Dungeon World
Dragon Age (unfortunately no Advanced Stunts for Martials)

On my current to look list is:
nWod (I'm currently looking at Exalted - is there something from White Wolf that is slightly lower fantasy; ie you're not divine from the get-go, but you still got dwarves and elves)
Warhammer Fantasy


What are your best experiences? I'd like a game where the different classes are smoothly on par throughout the game and preferably one where the classes have options in and out of combat from an early level.

I haven't played it since 2nd edition but Pendragon may fit your bill.

Each player is a knight or lady in Arthurian (classic La Morte d’Arthur) England. There was no option to play magic users, but there was a huge variety in PC creation. Depending on your campaign it could be combat oriented, diplomacy oriented, questing, spiritual or a mix of all of the above. Each part of a campaign was one year of time, so after a certain amount of time your PC was retired as too old, too injured or too mad and then you played their heir. Full campaigns often took place over 3 or 4 generations.

farothel
2019-08-11, 03:55 AM
Another option, but that's not a fantasy game (unless you do quite a bit of rework) is Alternity. It has magic, but it handles magic just like any other skill and while you can do neat things, it will be at the cost of other options. One thing: it very lethal. No matter how high a level you are, a first lvl. NPC with a pistol can still one-shot you if he gets a critical hit.

Another system and more fantasy like is L5R. I've played 3rd and mostly 4th edition and it's very balanced. The mages (mage-priests called Shugenja actually) have neat options, but it has very good balance between all three archetypes (bushi or warriors, shugenja or mages and courtiers). Each has its strengths and weaknesses. Again, it's a very lethal game and not the easiest of worlds to understand (the system itself is not all that difficult, it's the in game world that is harder to get).