PDA

View Full Version : Why Balance?



Pages : [1] 2

Hzurr
2007-12-05, 01:59 AM
This is something that has bothered me for a long time as I read the boards.

Why do we expect classes to be balanced?

I mean, seriously, think about it.

Should a fighter be on the same level as a wizard? No; because one swings a sword, the other changes the laws of physics.

Should a monk be on the same level as a cleric? No; because while one takes the human(oid) body to it's limits, the other has an all-powerful diety on his/her side.

I see a lot of complaints about how powerful the batman-wizard or Cleric/Druid-zilla is, and my first thought is "well...yeah, they use magic. It's powerful stuff."

In one of the recent threads about Tome of Battle, there was a comment that ToB helped bring melee characters to the level of spellcasters again. This is not a good thing. No matter how well you can swing a sword, you shouldn't be able to beat someone who can stop time, make things spontaniously combust, summon demons to his/her aid, and utter words so powerful that things die just by hearing it.

I've got some theories about why people rant about balance (which I'll put in the spoiler below), but on a fundamental level, why do you think we expect the classes to be balanced?

Some of my theories for people wanting balance are:
- They are trying to "beat" d&d as if it were a video game
- They are trying to impress other people with how awesome their make-believe character is
- They really enjoy throwing lots of dice
- They can’t stand losing the spotlight
- They don't want to accept that the unfairness of real-life carries over into make-believe life.
- They are trying to rectify cool character concepts with competitiveness to be better than those around them.
Note: Most of these are very tongue-in-cheek. Except for the last one, that’s one I really do believe is the case 92% of the time

tyckspoon
2007-12-05, 02:03 AM
It's because all of the classes are expected to be in the same party and all be played by equal real-life players. That's the basic premise of the game. It follows from that that each class should be able to contribute roughly equally, or you risk excluding a player from a large portion of the game. Not the character, the player- you know, those people who are sitting around the table trying to have fun with this thing. If spellcasters are awesome and everybody else is teh suck, then only spellcasters should be player characters. There are other good game systems based on this premise. D&D is not one of them.

Skjaldbakka
2007-12-05, 02:05 AM
Because it isn't any fun to have no purpose in an adventuring party. Seriously, why should there even be any fighters in an adventuring party? What do they contribute to the group? The answer? HPs.

HPs don't win battles. HPs aren't interesting.


Don't you want to contribute to the group?

SmartAlec
2007-12-05, 02:10 AM
Should a fighter be on the same level as a wizard? No; because one swings a sword, the other changes the laws of physics.

You're kind of assuming that Magic should be this awesomely, incredibly potent force that warps and twists the natural laws of the universe to suit the wielder. Should that be the case? When 'magic' is anything that the fluff says it is, why should it be so powerful? It could just as easy not be so powerful.

In a sense, you've bought into the 3rd Edition respresentation of a Wizard. That representation is by no means the only way to implement a spellcasting class. On one end of the scale, you've got something like Ars Magica, a game where even middle-ranking wizards can literally move mountains, boil seas and make the sky rain fire. On the other, you've got the Lord of the Rings RPG, say, where 'magic' is a largely unseen force and the spellcaster classes are simited to a variety of useful tricks, like magical light or speaking to birds.

In the first example there, Wizards dominate. It's a game written around Wizards. In the second, magic is very rarely used, or seen. That's fine. Both of these examples are very heavily-themed and anyone playing a spellcaster/non-spellcaster knows the drill.

But when we're dealing with a system that is made to be as applicable as possible, I'd like to see things on a more even level. That is all.

Khanderas
2007-12-05, 02:12 AM
Op
You list fluff reasons why the casters should be better.
But the reality of it is, you gotta make it work for 2-20 people with dice and for that to work every class should be viable, atleast most of the time.
That is all the reason I need to write.

The why it is the way it is:
a) 2nd ed D&D Fighting classes needed less xp to level up meaning wizards could be several levels behind and that kept it even. Then they scrapped the old xp system but didnt adjust much on the other end.
b) when you can cherrypick spells you can whip up some combos that was never ment to be.
c) magic is flashy and often features in new splatbooks. Flashy sells. Sold books are used. And Darwin might (possibly... or not) agree that only PrC's and splatspells that are more powerful then the originals are used ahead of the spells provided in the basic books.

Edit: Upon reflecting, I have a feeling you might have been sarcastic/ironic or whatever word that is applicable. I think it was the bit about the monks.

Hzurr
2007-12-05, 02:13 AM
Because it isn't any fun to have no purpose in an adventuring party. Seriously, why should there even be any fighters in an adventuring party?

[...]

Don't you want to contribute to the group?

Yeah, of course I do. However, my ability to kill as many monsters as my friend Billy-the-wizard has no bearing on whether or not I'm contributing to the group.



HPs don't win battles. HPs aren't interesting. Heh, see, you say that, but as soon as you start running out of them :smalltongue:







In a sense, you've bought into the 3rd Edition respresentation of a Wizard. That representation is by no means the only way to implement a spellcasting class. On one end of the scale, you've got something like Ars Magica, a game where even middle-ranking wizards can literally move mountains, boil seas and make the sky rain fire. On the other, you've got the Lord of the Rings RPG, say, where 'magic' is a largely unseen force and the spellcaster classes are simited to a variety of useful tricks, like magical light or speaking to birds.

In the first example there, Wizards dominate. It's a game written around Wizards. In the second, magic is very rarely used, or seen. That's fine. Both of these examples are very heavily-themed and anyone playing a spellcaster/non-spellcaster knows the drill.

But when we're dealing with a system that is made to be as applicable as possible, I'd like to see things on a more even level. That is all.

Ok, that argument I'll buy. You're definately right, I'm accepting spellcasters as they're presented in 3E (largely because of my inexperience with other systems) and basing my definition on that.

Snadgeros
2007-12-05, 02:14 AM
It's not just a matter of whether or not a wizard can do more than a fighter. The problem isn't that a wizard's attacks are more potent than a fighter's (although that's contributing). The issue is that DnD is a team game, meant to be so that every member contributes to the overall success in a significant manner. Fighters are supposed to tank, rogues are supposed to use skills, clerics are meant to heal and buff, and wizards are meant to blast stuff. The problem arises when wizards get spells so potent they can fill these roles themselves and no longer need the fighter. Melee classes cease to contribute anywhere close to the level that casters do at high levels.

Sure, casters alter reality at will, but playing to that does not make good game design. If I want to play one of the melee classes they created, I'm inevitably going to be outshined and made useless by Batman and CoDzilla, and the game is no longer fun for fighters. The point of a game is fun, and tell me, would you have fun sitting back and watching as one player takes over the entire campaign?

horseboy
2007-12-05, 02:15 AM
Because 4' of sharp steel should always be lethal. Because of the vagaries of hp's that stops being the case around 4thish. Sure wizards can still fly and call forth demons from beyond the pale. That's not really the problem. The problem is that the fighter, unless taken to excessive extremes can no longer do it's job.

Serpentine
2007-12-05, 02:16 AM
It seems like most of these arguments only involve comparisons of how much damage can be dealt and the like. I dunno, I don't think that works. Not all classes are meant to deal a lot of damage. In the case of spellcasters, too (I suppose druids and clerics largely excluded), the die a lot, or at least are at risk of it. A party isn't just attacking, it's being attacked, too. You want a party to be balanced? Then stop playing the enemies like idiots, and have them take out the wizard and cleric first.
There's also the fact that, although wizards and sorcerers and the like can deal horrendous amounts of damage, that's not what they're for. I can't remember where I read it (Logic Ninja's Guide?), but they're meant to control the battlefield, not obliterate it. The fighters are meant to be the major damage-dealer, and furthermore they have plenty enough adaptability to carve their own niche in the party.
It seems to me that most, if not all, the "balance" issues of the classes are easily solvable by creative character creation, DM fiat ("I'd prefer it if you didn't take Natural Spell"), and/or inter-player communication.

Hzurr
2007-12-05, 02:20 AM
It seems like most of these arguments only involve comparisons of how much damage can be dealt and the like. I dunno, I don't think that works. Not all classes are meant to deal a lot of damage. In the case of spellcasters, too (I suppose druids and clerics largely excluded), the die a lot, or at least are at risk of it. A party isn't just attacking, it's being attacked, too. You want a party to be balanced? Then stop playing the enemies like idiots, and have them take out the wizard and cleric first.
There's also the fact that, although wizards and sorcerers and the like can deal horrendous amounts of damage, that's not what they're for. I can't remember where I read it (Logic Ninja's Guide?), but they're meant to control the battlefield, not obliterate it. The fighters are meant to be the major damage-dealer, and furthermore they have plenty enough adaptability to carve their own niche in the party.
It seems to me that most, if not all, the "balance" issues of the classes are easily solvable by creative character creation, DM fiat ("I'd prefer it if you didn't take Natural Spell"), and/or inter-player communication.

*pauses*, *thinks* nods. Yeah, I think I agree with just about everything you said. I'm definately with you on the last paragraph, and I think because I've had this experience (of players communicating and working together) that I've never had the sit-on-the-sidelines-because-I'm-useless senario that some posters have mentioned.

Artemician
2007-12-05, 02:21 AM
It seems like most of these arguments only involve comparisons of how much damage can be dealt and the like. I dunno, I don't think that works. Not all classes are meant to deal a lot of damage. In the case of spellcasters, too (I suppose druids and clerics largely excluded), the die a lot, or at least are at risk of it. A party isn't just attacking, it's being attacked, too. You want a party to be balanced? Then stop playing the enemies like idiots, and have them take out the wizard and cleric first.
There's also the fact that, although wizards and sorcerers and the like can deal horrendous amounts of damage, that's not what they're for. I can't remember where I read it (Logic Ninja's Guide?), but they're meant to control the battlefield, not obliterate it. The fighters are meant to be the major damage-dealer, and furthermore they have plenty enough adaptability to carve their own niche in the party.
It seems to me that most, if not all, the "balance" issues of the classes are easily solvable by creative character creation, DM fiat ("I'd prefer it if you didn't take Natural Spell"), and/or inter-player communication.

That's not answering the question. The OP asked for the reasons why people would want balance. Whether the imbalance can actually be overcome is a moot point.

Now.. in my personal view.. I want balance for the simple fact that well, it's fair. Why should someone be punished with a lower power level if he wants to play a fighter? Similiarly, why should a caster automatically be stronger than a fighter, or a rogue? I want the ability to make my own choice; to be a strong fighter, or a weak caster if I see fit, and imbalances present inside Core Classes make it harder for me to do so. I'm not by any means suggesting that it's impossible, but it definitely makes it harder.

hamstard4ever
2007-12-05, 02:23 AM
Should a fighter be on the same level as a wizard?

That depends. If we have a 15th level fighter and a 15th level wizard, yes, they should be on the same level. This is implied by the word "level".


No matter how well you can swing a sword, you shouldn't be able to beat someone who can stop time, make things spontaniously combust, summon demons to his/her aid, and utter words so powerful that things die just by hearing it.

But apparently, it's just as easy to learn to stop time, spontaneously combust things, summon demons, and utter words of annihilation as it is to learn how to swing a sword pretty well. What is wrong with this picture?

Skjaldbakka
2007-12-05, 02:46 AM
It seems like most of these arguments only involve comparisons of how much damage can be dealt and the like. I dunno, I don't think that works. Not all classes are meant to deal a lot of damage. In the case of spellcasters, too (I suppose druids and clerics largely excluded), the die a lot, or at least are at risk of it. A party isn't just attacking, it's being attacked, too. You want a party to be balanced? Then stop playing the enemies like idiots, and have them take out the wizard and cleric first.
There's also the fact that, although wizards and sorcerers and the like can deal horrendous amounts of damage, that's not what they're for. I can't remember where I read it (Logic Ninja's Guide?), but they're meant to control the battlefield, not obliterate it. The fighters are meant to be the major damage-dealer, and furthermore they have plenty enough adaptability to carve their own niche in the party.
It seems to me that most, if not all, the "balance" issues of the classes are easily solvable by creative character creation, DM fiat ("I'd prefer it if you didn't take Natural Spell"), and/or inter-player communication.

Which roughly translates to "its ok the game is broken, because of rule 0".

Just because something can be fixed doesn't mean its not broken.

Dairun Cates
2007-12-05, 02:50 AM
It seems like most of these arguments only involve comparisons of how much damage can be dealt and the like. I dunno, I don't think that works. Not all classes are meant to deal a lot of damage. In the case of spellcasters, too (I suppose druids and clerics largely excluded), the die a lot, or at least are at risk of it. A party isn't just attacking, it's being attacked, too. You want a party to be balanced? Then stop playing the enemies like idiots, and have them take out the wizard and cleric first.
There's also the fact that, although wizards and sorcerers and the like can deal horrendous amounts of damage, that's not what they're for. I can't remember where I read it (Logic Ninja's Guide?), but they're meant to control the battlefield, not obliterate it. The fighters are meant to be the major damage-dealer, and furthermore they have plenty enough adaptability to carve their own niche in the party.
It seems to me that most, if not all, the "balance" issues of the classes are easily solvable by creative character creation, DM fiat ("I'd prefer it if you didn't take Natural Spell"), and/or inter-player communication.

Not to beat a dead horse, but doesn't the fact that wizards can do more damage AND are better at battlefield control just prove inherent brokeness even worse?

Besides, I think from the way the game is designed, the people that made D&D did not exactly expect people to play Batman Wizards. That's something that's been created by the fans of the game and emergent gameplay.

hewhosaysfish
2007-12-05, 02:51 AM
That depends. If we have a 15th level fighter and a 15th level wizard, yes, they should be on the same level. This is implied by the word "level".
QFT

Saying that "Magic should be able to do more that might, so a Wizard 10 should be better than a Fighter 10" makes about as much sense to me as saying "A warrior should be tougher than a bookworm, so a Fighter with 40hp should be able to take more damage than a Wizard with 40 hp".

Kantolin
2007-12-05, 03:01 AM
Doing nothing is not fun.

Playing a mook is not fun.

Wanting to play the heroic knight in shining armour who gallantly slays the dragon, as opposed to the guy standing there to watch important people do their things, should be a pleasant option.

Nevermind that the flavor you've mentioned can be reversed, and fairly easily.

So I suppose to answer your question: The classes should be balanced so the game is fun.

Fiery Diamond
2007-12-05, 03:02 AM
I'm gonna agree with Serpentine and the OP. Serpentine did respond to the question adequately -- essentially said "I'm not one of those people who get upset about balance. Here is why." The thread would be boring if only people who had problems with balance posted - discussion (the point of a forum) can only take place if opposing sides are both presented.

By the way, players and DM working together to create a better game is "rule 0." If that is how you define Rule 0. However, if that is how you define rule 0, then the initial game designers' creations and even intentions should always take back seat to rule 0, rule 0 not being a bad thing. The point of playing D&D is to have fun, not to "play D&D."

That said, I can understand why some people are concerned about balance - to a small extent. If the DM and players are all inexperienced, they might not know which things could potentially cause problems. After playing a little bit, though, I'm pretty sure that most people are going to decide what is necessary and what is not. I DM, and I don't use extensive houserules. I just do I feel is needed. We don't have any problems.

Respectfully yours,

- Fiery Diamond

random11
2007-12-05, 03:08 AM
"Balance" is not the same as "equal".

In a balanced game, not all classes will have the same job, but all will be useful in some ways during the campaign.

If a 15th level wizard can defeat most 15th level fighters in a duel, it's acceptable. But if in a group that 15th level fighter will be just an ornament because of the wizard, then it won't be fun for that player.

Changing the rules of the games isn't the only way to solve balance issues, usually a good campaign setting can balance might and magic.
It might even make a monk useful :smallsmile:

Snadgeros
2007-12-05, 03:18 AM
It seems like most of these arguments only involve comparisons of how much damage can be dealt and the like. I dunno, I don't think that works. Not all classes are meant to deal a lot of damage. In the case of spellcasters, too (I suppose druids and clerics largely excluded), the die a lot, or at least are at risk of it. A party isn't just attacking, it's being attacked, too. You want a party to be balanced? Then stop playing the enemies like idiots, and have them take out the wizard and cleric first.

That's exactly part of the problem though. Go ahead; have your monsters attack CoDzilla. Unless you're throwing something with a CR well beyond what they should be facing at that level at them, that wildshaped druid or divine powered cleric will fight just as well as the fighter, probably better given their access to spells and healing. You want to kill Batman? Good luck; you can't reach him while he's flying and has a contingency up to dimension door away when anything comes within 10 feet of him. Let's not forget windwall and/or protection from arrows to keep archers at bay. Given his option of cherrypicking spells from a huge list of them for any occasion (and being able to hide out in extraplanar areas to replenish them) he's untouchable if played correctly.

Sure any of this could be overcome with Rule 0, but then the designers at WotC aren't doing their jobs properly. They're supposed to create a system in which the characters are innately balanced, but failed. Their solution? Allow the players to do all the work for them and make DMs do the balancing. Sure, you can't test for everything, as no one could see Pun-Pun coming, but these aren't cheesey builds, they're fundamental flaws in game design. Having party members fill roles other than those intended for them is breaking the game, and I'm seriously hoping 4E fixes this.

EDIT:
It might even make a monk useful :smallsmile:

HEY! I resent that! Please don't bring this up; we have ENOUGH monk threads.:smallsigh:

Jarchh
2007-12-05, 03:27 AM
In reality obviously a wizard would be far more powerful then a fighter(if they existed that is), however you've got to remember the most important fact.... "This is a game". Having one player amazing powerful and the others all underpowered and usless is only fun for that one player. Everyone has to be able to contribute ((as close as possible to)) equally to the party otherwise it's unfair and the game isnt fun for half the people playing it.:smallsmile:

Serpentine
2007-12-05, 03:28 AM
Which roughly translates to "its ok the game is broken, because of rule 0".

Just because something can be fixed doesn't mean its not broken.I'm not talking about houseruling or "fixing". I'm talking about the DM considering all the characters that the players want to play and suggesting ways to create them that takes into account all needs. It's not about changing the rules, it's about using them, generally the way they're meant to be used, to benefit everyone.

Not to beat a dead horse, but doesn't the fact that wizards can do more damage AND are better at battlefield control just prove inherent brokeness even worse?Just because you can do that, doesn't mean you should, or that the DM should allow it (and just because you can use the rules to create something incredibly broken doesn't make the rules broken, just your use of them). Just pick a role, already. By taking the right feats and choosing the right weapons, etc., a Fighter can also be very good at battlefield control. There are enough niches to go around, and with enough player-player and DM-player communication, not only should they all be at least adequately filled but everyone should have their own, with minimum overlap (unless the party decides it could use a back-up).

I guess, basically, I'm trying to say what random11 has said so much more succinctly...

Paragon Badger
2007-12-05, 03:32 AM
GM: Okay, so we have a cleric/druid, a wizard, another wizard...and a fighter.
Party: ...Hahah!
Fighter: What?
Cleric: A fighter? You suck! I could beat you in melee AND heal everyone else!
Fighter: Okay, I'll be a rogue, skill monkey.
Wizard A: Don't need it, I'm the blaster...
Wizard B: ...And I'm the fixer.
Fighter: ...I'll be what Jim is, then.
GM: Just photocopy his character sheet.

That's why we need balance. <_<

A good campaign setting could allow the skill monkey some time to shine, but what if another class is moving in on his territory? Opening locks, disarming traps, ect. The rogue is likely useless because the wizard can do it better, and faster.

Wizards and Clerics can walk on the territory of pretty much every other class, when they get high enough level.

Not fun.

Animefunkmaster
2007-12-05, 03:56 AM
The reasons things SHOULD be balanced is because this is a game with equal players. No one wants to play a game of chess without there queen and knights VS a player with all queens instead of pawns.

With that said the classes in DND are not balanced perfectly, because players have options. Still, each player is needed, as long as they approach the game correctly.

Using the previous example of the druid cleric wizard wizard fighter mix.
No skill monkey, but the druid could fill in. (no one has trap finding which could be a problem, but thats why animate dead exist, I suppose)
Cleric and Druid can be melee with little problems.
Wizard can blast good
other wizard can "fix" not sure what that means, but lets assume that is battlefield control/support spells

So lets say the fighter is a spiked chain tripper. Without going too much into the build lets assume he is a half giant and uses dungeon crasher coupled with Knockback and shock trooper. He doesn't really conflict with the melee as his primary goal is to knock enemies on there butt and move them in situations to maximize the effectiveness of the other party members (So this example would use an AoO to make a touch attack, with power attack to trigger knockback, trip them, bullrush them into clumbs, get dungeon crasher damage). His damage is not going to be anything worth much but it will be something, and it will set up the blaster to fireball the tightly packed group of enemies, and it will set up the druid and the cleric to better protect the casters as a wall of melee death, from this point the wizard can also control the battlefield with various save or screwed spells. If the battle is being controlled by the wizard alone, have the fighter charge and power attack for full (hopefully pouncing somehow, lion totem barbarian, psionic lions pounce). He won't disrupt melee because you really can't have too much melee (unless you have no range at all), and you can keep using this tactic (knocking people over and bullrushing them) to allow the other party members to be able to prepare other useful spells.

I think the biggest problem in game balance is teamwork and general knowledge level of the players. If the game is played as a team rather than I fill this role he will fill that role, or worse the loner badass competition, then everyone is included and no one has hurt feelings. Big note: teamwork starts at character creation, helping people with characters if they are unknowledgable in this that or whatever or if they want to complement each other.

A DM should be able to make a campaign where non casters are still useful... such as a secret entrance to blah but it is blanketed in an antimagic field, or just a very long campaign where it is difficult to get rest and pearls of power/other spell restorative items are either not working or stolen. The DM should come up with something.

Skjaldbakka
2007-12-05, 04:00 AM
I don't want to build 'part of the team'. I want to build a character. One that is unique and flavorful, and is good at something that matters.

Fighters don't do that well.

serow
2007-12-05, 04:39 AM
Because Jedi kick the best ass when using a lightsaber, not their Force powers.

...

Yup.
:smallbiggrin:

Serpentine
2007-12-05, 04:39 AM
A mercantile gladiator who excels in employing nets and tripping to ensure that all enemies are forced to face him and him alone.

The knight in shining armor, who charges in on horseback to pierce his foe with his lance.

The daring swashbuckler who relies on his quick feet rather than unwieldy plates of metal to keep him safe.

A cunning general, expert in coordinating attacks and not afraid to get into the fighting to bolster party morale.

The stealth killer, sniping from the shadows, picking off his targets with practiced ease.

Although many of these concepts now have their own classes and prestige classes, they can be created quite adequately just using the fighter class. They can all be unique, flavourful, and good at what they do. That's down to the player, not the rules.

Skjaldbakka
2007-12-05, 04:52 AM
A mercantile gladiator who excels in employing nets and tripping to ensure that all enemies are forced to face him and him alone.

Is useless against large or bigger opponents, and is also useless outside of combat.


The knight in shining armor, who charges in on horseback to pierce his foe with his lance.

Is useless in any combat that isn't outdoors. Which is most combats, since outdoor encounters tend to be random encounters, which most DMs ignore because they don't add anything to the story. Also- useless outside of combat, and the only skill he has that you would expect of a knight (Ride, Diplomacy, Knowledge: Nobility) is Ride.


The daring swashbuckler who relies on his quick feet rather than unwieldy plates of metal to keep him safe.

The fighter really, really sucks at doing this. Take a look at all the dex-based skills a fighter gets. . . . . Yeah. Quick on your feet? Is that how you describe someone who buys all cross-class skills? Not to mention that Improved Feint, which is part of the skill tree you would expect from this character, doesn't help you do anything but hit. You need sneak attack to capitalize on that. Which means this character is a rogue. Rogues rock. Rogues are awesome. I'm not complaining about rogues.


A cunning general, expert in coordinating attacks and not afraid to get into the fighting to bolster party morale.

The fighter doesn't have any class features that help him do any of that. Oh wait! The fighter doesn't have class features. There IS a class that fits that concept. Its called a bard. Or a cleric.


The stealth killer, sniping from the shadows, picking off his targets with practiced ease.

Also, fighter can't do this at all. He doesn't have any way to be sneaky, or to capitalize on catching foes by surprise. See above comments on rogues.


Although many of these concepts now have their own classes and prestige classes, they can be created quite adequately just using the fighter class. They can all be unique, flavourful, and good at what they do. That's down to the player, not the rules.

Yeah, unique and flavorful, maybe. Fighter can't do any but 1 of the above concepts, and the one it can do, requires that the majority of the game be spent fighting medium size creatures.

Also, I said good at something that matters. Not good at what they do. Monks are good at . . . making will saves. Which isn't something that matters often enough to build a characte around.

random11
2007-12-05, 04:54 AM
A mercantile gladiator who excels in employing nets and tripping to ensure that all enemies are forced to face him and him alone.

The knight in shining armor, who charges in on horseback to pierce his foe with his lance.

The daring swashbuckler who relies on his quick feet rather than unwieldy plates of metal to keep him safe.

A cunning general, expert in coordinating attacks and not afraid to get into the fighting to bolster party morale.

The stealth killer, sniping from the shadows, picking off his targets with practiced ease.

Although many of these concepts now have their own classes and prestige classes, they can be created quite adequately just using the fighter class. They can all be unique, flavourful, and good at what they do. That's down to the player, not the rules.

Yes, but what if the fighter is part of a group that contains another member who overpowers him in practically everything?
The fighter will still be unique and with flavor, but it just won't be fun to play.

SmartAlec
2007-12-05, 04:55 AM
They can all be unique, flavourful, and good at what they do. That's down to the player, not the rules.

Unique and flavourful are indeed up to the player, but he or she can be so either supported by the game, or in spite of the game.

Unfortunately, in the case of melee classes and D&D 3rd Edition, it is the latter.

I suppose that's the most important reason for balance there is. An unbalanced system makes fun concepts difficult to implement, and you have to fight the rules to make them work.

Serpentine
2007-12-05, 05:47 AM
Oh, for- You're complaining about a class called "Fighter" being most useful for fighting?! Shock-horror! It just looks to me like far too many people are worrying more about complaining that you can't do something than actually trying to do it. Those were just flavours and ideas. Saying things like this:

Is useless against large or bigger opponents, and is also useless outside of combat.is like saying that a wizard is useless against anything immune to fire because he likes to use fireball a lot. Just because, to use that example, he excels at using nets, doesn't mean that's the only thing he's going to use.
No one character should be useful in all situations. All characters should have their time, of course, but they also need their time to be inadequate. Worried about a Fighter feeling left out? Go into combat! If fighting doesn't matter in Dungeons and Dragons, you're playing a very different game to most people.
Anyway, as far as I'm concerned, most core balance problems are minimal (though I must admit I am still considering limiting or eliminating Natural Spell, but it hasn't really mattered in my game), and fairly easily overcome just with cautious character building.*

For the record, no sane DM would allow a Pun-Pun in their game, so I don't really see how it proves anything at all.

*e.g. A wizard deciding not to use Knock at every door, a druid choosing to forego Natural Spell, a cleric focusing on healing and buffing rather than combat. Picking and choosing rules, priorities and roles, not "fixing", changing and homebrewing. Personally, I think it's much more fun to focus on a niche than being able to do everything.

edit: Huh. Funny how these discussions can make a normal person turn really bitchy... I think I've said everything I can, anyway.

Skjaldbakka
2007-12-05, 05:59 AM
is like saying that a wizard is useless against anything immune to fire because he likes to use fireball a lot

Here is where your comparison completely breaks down. A level 10 fighter who is specialized in tripping and using nets, who has discovered to his horror that his combat strategy is ineffective, can't do anything about it. He's already locked into a strategy that doesn't work against the foes he is fighting. Why? Because his 'class features' lock him into whatever combat style he thought looked good at level 1. He can't change them. If fighter got even a couple of his bonus feats as 'wildcard feats', he would be fine (ok, better skill points would be nice too).

A wizard that thinks fireball is cool? He probably took empower spell and maximize spell. Both feats that are still useful once he realizes that dealing direct damage with fire is no longer a viable option. Next morning, he has lightning bolts and cones of cold, and is ready to fight fire immune foes. Or he could switch out for more useful spells, since direct damage is the slowest method of taking down foes, barring a handful of very specific builds, focused on dealing massive damage with spells. There are actual good spells that benefit from empower and maximize. Take Ray of Enfeeblement for example (quite possibly the best level 1 PHB spell).


Worried about a Fighter feeling left out? Go into combat!

Maybe I want to be able to roleplay, and be active in social situations, and have at least one useful skill to back it up. Shock!/horror!

The knight concept, for example. My first character was an elven noble warrior. I can't play that character in 3.5 (or couldn't until Knight came out very recently). Paladin and Fighter are the classes that you would think would fit, but neither have the skill points to pull it off. Paladin would also completely change the flavor of the character. (Tristan's concept was inspired by the fact elves couldn't be paladins, so I played that up alot with the character).

Serpentine
2007-12-05, 06:01 AM
My point was that just because you're best with one, in this case, weapon, doesn't mean you're totally useless with any other.

Oh, and "next morning" doesn't help much when you're dead.

greenknight
2007-12-05, 06:08 AM
Oh, for- You're complaining about a class called "Fighter" being most useful for fighting?!

There's more to it than that. Sure, everyone expects the Fighter to be good at fighting. The problem is that other classes (Druids with their animal companion, and Clerics at higher levels) can fight just as well and are useful for a lot of other stuff. In other words, your party will be significanty more capable if you don't have a Fighter.


like saying that a wizard is useless against anything immune to fire because he likes to use fireball a lot. Just because, to use that example, he excels at using nets, doesn't mean that's the only thing he's going to use.

But the Fighter is basically restricted to physical combat, while the Wizard has a whole range of capabilities through spells.


No one character should be useful in all situations. All characters should have their time, of course, but they also need their time to be inadequate.

The thread topic is "Why Balance?", and yes, this is the reason. Unfortunately, under the current rules, some classes do have the capability to significantly outshine others.


Anyway, as far as I'm concerned, most core balance problems are minimal (though I must admit I am still considering limiting or eliminating Natural Spell, but it hasn't really mattered in my game), and fairly easily overcome just with cautious character building.*

It does depend on the rules you allow. But especially at higher levels, there are lots of ways full spellcasters can dominate the game.


*e.g. A wizard deciding not to use Knock at every door, a druid choosing to forego Natural Spell, a cleric focusing on healing and buffing rather than combat.

Yes, those are all ways characters other than spellcasters can shine. But it's more a case of the spellcasters deliberately giving those characters a chance to play than really needing them for the job.


Oh, and "next morning" doesn't help much when you're dead.

Not if you've got a decent Cleric, or a Clone.

Skjaldbakka
2007-12-05, 06:08 AM
My point was that just because you're best with one, in this case, weapon, doesn't mean you're totally useless with any other.

Yeah. You know what you call a fighter that is wielding a weapon that he hasn't invested feats into? A warrior.


Oh, and "next morning" doesn't help much when you're dead.

Yeah, well- a wizard that specializes in fireball deserves to be dead. Wizards are intelligence based casters. Only prepping fireballs is stupid. Which means that you are playing a gimped character anyway. Something like playing a fighter that decides he doesn't want to bother with feats. And wants his charisma to be his highest stat.

Reinboom
2007-12-05, 06:12 AM
=this was in response to serpy's post=

I hope, by then, the wizard has learned that he doesn't have to fill his spell slots at the beginning of the day, and should leave 25%+ open to fill conditionally in 15 minutes in the middle of the day. A wizard should also know that they're squishy, and should run (hopefully with the rest of the party) when they're squishiness is at stake.

Core? The fighter has issues. They've wasted a lot of their potential focusing on one thing, because they thought it was cool, fun, and fit their idea. When later, that thing suddenly becomes useless. Yes, the fighter could switch to another weapon. Yes, they can use it. However, most of their class features? Wasted.
The PHB2 retraining rules helps mitigate this, fortunately.

Then there comes the issue of arcane superiority at higher levels, coupled with very iffy creatures. Where no form of the fighter becomes any more than a standing meat shield, and all his weapon focus (not the feat) means naught.

Skjaldbakka
2007-12-05, 06:18 AM
I hope, by then, the wizard has learned that he doesn't have to fill his spell slots at the beginning of the day, and should leave 25%+ open to fill conditionally in 15 minutes in the middle of the day.

I have to admit that this is a trick I have only acquired recently. It just never occured to me leave slots open. But then again, I don't like to play casters. Hence my beef with fighter not being up to par. I really think better skills and a few wildcard feats would be enough though.

Serpentine
2007-12-05, 06:22 AM
What do you mean by wildcard feats?

Reinboom
2007-12-05, 06:23 AM
What do you mean by wildcard feats?

Feats that you can change on the fly, I think. (Either between encounters or at the beginning of the day)

Skjaldbakka
2007-12-05, 06:24 AM
A feat that is left blank, and that you can take some form of action (probably full-round, possibly scaling up to immediate by 20th level), to gain a feat on the fly. You would then either be stuck with that feat until the end of the day, or you would have that feat for a duration, after which it would be gone for the day.

greenknight
2007-12-05, 06:36 AM
I really think better skills and a few wildcard feats would be enough though.

I'd prefer feats which scale with level, the way Power Attack and practically all the Metamagic Feats do. For example, if you took Weapon Focus, it would give you a bonus to hit equal to 1/5th your BAB (round up).

Bosh
2007-12-05, 06:38 AM
D&D has its roots in tabletop wargaming and tactical combat has always been a big part of D&D. Since in D&D you only get one character (usually) for the tactical combat to work out right each character has to be about as useful as the next in a fight.

Of course you don't HAVE to play D&D that way, just like you don't HAVE to attack other players when you play Risk but that is a big part of what D&D is all about.

What you are talking about with all of your "shoulds" and "sholdn'ts" is a desire for a world that has verisimilitude (internal consistently and truthlikeness of fiction) which isn't really D&D's strong point. For that sort of thing you'd be better of with something like Harnmaster.

There are a lot of good games out there aside from D&D trying to make D&D something that it isn't in order to get the kind of gaming that you want is counter-productive.


I can't remember where I read it (Logic Ninja's Guide?), but they're meant to control the battlefield, not obliterate it. The fighters are meant to be the major damage-dealer, and furthermore they have plenty enough adaptability to carve their own niche in the party.
Actually other way round. The game's designers meant for wizards to be blasters but they're actually much better at battlefield control.

The other big problem is that in most cases a party of nothing but casters (mix of divine and arcane) can do pretty much everything better than a classic one of each of the four archetypes party.


Although many of these concepts now have their own classes and prestige classes, they can be created quite adequately just using the fighter class. They can all be unique, flavourful, and good at what they do. That's down to the player, not the rules.
They can be unique, they can be flavorful but for a lot of those archetypes you mentioned a fighter trying to be that archetype WON'T be good at what they do. This is a problem.


is like saying that a wizard is useless against anything immune to fire because he likes to use fireball a lot.
Wizards can memorize different spells. Fighters can't change their feats.


No one character should be useful in all situations.
Which is why druids need a good hard wack with the nerf stick.


All characters should have their time
Fighters have a big problem with this at higher levels or with a party of people who play their casters tactically.


A wizard deciding not to use Knock at every door, a druid choosing to forego Natural Spell, a cleric focusing on healing and buffing rather than combat.
Right, these problems can be fixed. But just because they can be fixed doesn't mean that they're broken.

Kioran
2007-12-05, 06:38 AM
Why Balance? In short: because you might be stuck at the table with someone who is NE in real life and likes steling the show or totally overshadowing the others. Who gets bitchy when he doesn´t get natural Spell.

Balance should prevent that one character can arbitrarily amp up his power to a point where he can overshadow his entire Party or shatter half the campaign.

Take "Twinkonius"(a justified permutation of his real name), that 20 INT grey Elf Enchanter, who can Tasha 80% of the humanoid NPCs in one shot (core only!). It´s getting boring to run Giant Spiders every other encounter just so people can actually act before the fight is over.......or using Over-CRed encounters as cannon fodder......

A good group can make any system run. In a group of sensible people, like the one Serpentine bases her assumptions of, you could run Synnibar or even FATAL without it sucking to bad. But if you´re with n00bs or these friends of yours who have that one minor flaw, namely playing alone in company, you´ll want rules that keep a lid on this.
No absolute balance, just a rough equivalence.....

Skjaldbakka
2007-12-05, 06:39 AM
I'd prefer feats which scale with level, the way Power Attack and practically all the Metamagic Feats do. For example, if you took Weapon Focus, it would give you a bonus to hit equal to 1/5th your BAB (round up).

True, but wildcard feats are a much smaller amount of effort. You have to take into consideration the effects of an improved weapon focus on things like power attack and disarming.

Dausuul
2007-12-05, 07:43 AM
Should a fighter be on the same level as a wizard? No; because one swings a sword, the other changes the laws of physics.

Absolutely. The laws of physics are hard and virtually immutable, so the wizard must study for years to learn to bend them even a fraction. The fighter, who works with physics instead of against it, is obviously going to be far more effective.


Should a monk be on the same level as a cleric? No; because while one takes the human(oid) body to it's limits, the other has an all-powerful diety on his/her side.

Of course a monk shouldn't be on the same level as a cleric. After all, that god is all-powerful because he draws on the spiritual force of his worshippers; which means that if you're his cleric, he's drawing that force from you, and you're making do with whatever scraps he happens to toss your way.

The monk, meanwhile, is learning to channel his entire spiritual force for his own purposes, and his personal power is correspondingly greater.

Reinboom
2007-12-05, 08:12 AM
This is something that has bothered me for a long time as I read the boards.

Why do we expect classes to be balanced?

I mean, seriously, think about it.

Should a fighter be on the same level as a wizard? No; because one swings a sword, the other changes the laws of physics.

Should a monk be on the same level as a cleric? No; because while one takes the human(oid) body to it's limits, the other has an all-powerful diety on his/her side.

I see a lot of complaints about how powerful the batman-wizard or Cleric/Druid-zilla is, and my first thought is "well...yeah, they use magic. It's powerful stuff."
-snip-
Ooo, didn't see this one.

This would work better if D&D was a free for-all roleplay, with little rules.
However.
D&D is a game.
If you are so powerful as to make the person who wants to play the fighter bored - bored to the point that they might as well quit - well... you just lost a player. Repeat. Again.
What's the point of playing a team game solo? :smallconfused:

Roderick_BR
2007-12-05, 08:26 AM
Why should I want to play a game whose sole purpose is to one-up your party?
Why should I bother with a game that punishes you by your basic choices?
Why shouldn't I go play WoW, Final Fantasy, Legend of Zelda, or some other videogame where I can actually have fun?
I want to play a RPG game, not Magic the Gathering.

If the fighter and the wizard both fought an army of orcs, a group of assassin drows, drove back a plague of undead, and finally beat a dragon... why the heck the fighter gains so little power, and the wizard so much? They earned the same experience, why the disparity?

By definition, the wizard should gain a lot less power, because "bending the laws of physics" shouldn't be [b]easy[b]. But in D&D, it is.

Ask this, instead: Why do wizards(and other full casters) get SO MUCH power, that put them above even monsters of the same (or higher) CR?

D&D gives too much power to casters. That is the source of unbalance.

Closet_Skeleton
2007-12-05, 08:32 AM
If a 15th level wizard can defeat most 15th level fighters in a duel, it's acceptable.

No it isn't, because the fighter has no other options. The fighter should be best in a fight because it's what he does.


In reality obviously a wizard would be far more powerful then a fighter(if they existed that is)

Not really. If magic involves 20 people doing a three hour ritual in order to create a rainstorm, then magic is more powerful in that it can control the weather, but half the time an army of soldiers is going to be more useful. If the D&D wizard existed in real life he would be more powerful than a fighter, but only because he already is.

Fawsto
2007-12-05, 08:58 AM
D&D fighters were made to kill sveral weak enemies in the frontline. They expected from a D&D fighter, when created, to be a Full Armored Damage Eater that Kills in the battlefront... Not a Swashbuckler, not a Stealthy Sniper... Not even a General.

So, why fighters suck? Because they only know how to get feats and combo them to use in combat. They just kill! They are not usefull outside combat, they are boring to play after some time. For Jesus Sake, he gets 2+ int skill points per level and a more tahn crappy skill selection! Those Meleers that only Obtain 2+ int skills should receive 4+int skills (exactly like in the ToB) and receive decent skill selections, including Social Skills, Listen, Spot and Search and even Use Magic Device if properly applied.

That's why I play Paladins. They can fight as properly as a Fighter, but they ARE of some use outside combat. They'r class features allow him to interact with the world peacefully. He has the BEST social skill: Diplomacy. Who can help overcoming friendly and unfriendly situations. He can cast a few spells, which are good if you check them out, making possible to buff himself at some extent. And, finally, he can use wands, so he can cure himself and Keep fighting for longer and harder than the fighter (also, they receive cha x lvl extra hitpoints dressed as "Lay on Hands"). Why Paladins loose to Casters in the end? Because after lvl 6 things get a little boring for the Paladin, since his skills are just getting stronger with the level increase: More Smite Damage, More Smites, More Lay on Hands, More Spells... Etc. (I only think that pallys should get a few more spells, but it is just IMO).

You see my point? Fighter suck because they have one option only. They are there to fight, only. Period. If they could fight slightly better and do other things, they would be fun to play.

KoDT69
2007-12-05, 09:17 AM
Here is where your comparison completely breaks down. A level 10 fighter who is specialized in tripping and using nets, who has discovered to his horror that his combat strategy is ineffective, can't do anything about it. He's already locked into a strategy that doesn't work against the foes he is fighting. -snip-

I'm sorry dude, but I have to agree with Serpentine. Your counter-argument is not very good at all. A fighter specialized in nets/tripping going against a conditional large opponent is exactly the same as the fire-crazed blaster wizard (yes we all know a sub-par choice but humor the scenario) going against something immune to fire. It's a conditional situation.


Why? Because his 'class features' lock him into whatever combat style he thought looked good at level 1. -snip-

Maybe for the first few levels, but seriously, by level 20 a human fighter has what, 19 feats? If 19 feats make you a one-trick pony, it's your own fault. You should have a shock-trooping, power attacking charger who can trip and out-grapple stuff even if it is a size category larger. He should have decent crowd control AND the ability to lay the smack-down. And in a proper ACTUAL game where the lowly fighter can spend some of his loot on magic items that will allow him flight, faster speed, freedom of movemet, or any other number of things that will allow greater mobility, and better weapon properties to amp his damage output! I've never had any of my players complain that their melee character sucked (aside from that one new guy we all had, the one that plays a half-orc rogue trying to dual-weild greataxes and can't seem to make a sneak-attack with his 12 DEX or whatever, yeah sad but true).


A wizard that thinks fireball is cool? He probably took empower spell and maximize spell. Both feats that are still useful once he realizes that dealing direct damage with fire is no longer a viable option. Next morning, he has lightning bolts and cones of cold, and is ready to fight fire immune foes.

I have no idea how other people run a campaign, but I have never let a wizard player say "wait guys, I don't have any cold/lightning spells to kill this, let's just retreat and tomorrow we'll come back". It don't happen in any normal situation, but yes there could be exceptions with divinations in play I agree. But if you get attacked and can't retreat, this option is not available, and it is also condescending to the rest of the group to tell them they need you to win every fight like that.


Maybe I want to be able to roleplay, and be active in social situations, and have at least one useful skill to back it up. Shock!/horror!

Just because the character has no social skills listed as CLASS SKILLS does not exclude then from taking cross-class skill ranks in them. I also don't agree that you need skill ranks to RP anyway. Really, I don't care if you have a 40 charisma and maxed diplomacy, if you walk into the bar and tell the bartender to go out in the street and die, you will get a negative reaction (if he's a stranger of course, this statement between friends can be acceptable tho, just ask my step-son :smallbiggrin: ) Point is, you can RP any situation without the DM forcing skill rolls. I never understood why those exist, since you know darn well none of us can truly RP a 45 diplomacy skill roll, or we'd all be rich and powerful, ruling the world and all that.

Sorry Skjaldbakka, not trying to pick at you really. I just disagree. Serpentine is a lot like my players. We keep balance regardless of the one uber-optimizer when I DM. The enemy is intelligent too, and sometimes nominally more.

Now back in 2nd edition for the same XP you could have a 20th level fighter at the top of his game, and depending on the bonus XP options available, the same gaming sessions would yeild the wizard player level 14 or so, which gave you 7th level spells. 3rd edition would have been much more balanced if a similar XP wizard (20th now in 3rd since the XP table is the same for everybody) could only cast 7th level spells. Time Stop and Disjunction and Magnificent Mansion should be epic spells. We all know it. My own homebrewed rules let the full caster get 7th level spells at 21st level. Yes we play epic, and no I don't allow everything from epic casting but some is good. Epic is broken altogether.

Serpentine
2007-12-05, 09:29 AM
Whee, somebody's on my side ^_^
<.<
>.>
>runs away again<

TimeWizard
2007-12-05, 09:54 AM
Why balance? Are you kidding? Do you know how hard it is to walk over an oiled makeshift log bridge above a 200 foot chasm? Jeesh.

Snadgeros
2007-12-05, 09:55 AM
Yes, we all know that with "teamwork" and "Rule 0" a fighter can be given a niche. The point is that he has a niche that can be taken from him and never returned by any druid with natural spell and any cleric who plays his character even half-decently. Sure, with all the feats you get, you can become super-effective at one type of combat, but then you're just pigeonholing yourself and will be useless when another form of combat comes up. Fighters have one use: fighting, and when they're not even the best at that, there's obviously something broken. This isn't ubercheese. This isn't super-optimization. A moderately optimized cleric will always be better than a moderately optimized fighter. Same goes for druid and wizard (if he knows how to prepare spells properly, as in, more than one energy type).

Please, in discussions such as these, unless we're talking about cheesey builds (e.g. Pun-Pun) then bringing up Rule 0 is pointless. The point of this discussion is how casters are severely more powerful than melee characters and this needs to be fixed.

Serpentine
2007-12-05, 09:59 AM
If you're talking about me, I didn't bring up Rule 0 (I mentioned DM fiat, but that might've been a mangling of terms on my part).
And actually, the OP's question was about whether it needs to be fixed.

KoDT69
2007-12-05, 10:10 AM
I mentioned the use of Rule 0 in my own games briefly. So what? It is there for a reason. No RPG is completely balanced without having only one playable character type. D&D was designed with 4 roles in mind, then they printed splatbook after splatbook to maintain an income. If you don't play it the way they designed it, then it's up to you to make your own changes for balance.
Likewise, in practical application, Rule 0 is used 90% of the game. The rules for diplomacy say that you can make somebody "indifferent" to you, but Rule 0 is what determines what that actually means. You can't avoid it.

The point is that there should be balance for fairness to all parties. The fighter should have an equal chance at killing an enemy as the wizard. I personally find it much harder to beleive that a wizard can truly spend a lifetime learning to manifest cantrips and 1st level spells, then within a few months of burning little green goblins, he can stop time, and drop an ancient dragon out of the air and make it beg for mercy. But this is the system we're given. You have the choice not to play it. Yes it does need fixed depending on your playstyle, but so does Rifts, Star Wars, and Shadowrun (yes Shadowrun too) because everyone is different. WotC chose one playstyle and built to it. I doubt there was really any better way except choosing the normally accepted style we all discuss here and reevaluate for 3.5, but they didn't do that. I agree they messed up some stuff, but they're human, like all of us.

Jayabalard
2007-12-05, 10:11 AM
D&D has its roots in tabletop wargaming and tactical combat has always been a big part of D&D. Since in D&D you only get one character (usually) for the tactical combat to work out right each character has to be about as useful as the next in a fight.There's nothing wrong with having a game where there is a disparity in power between the players. Why do you assume that it is necessary?


Of course you don't HAVE to play D&D that way, just like you don't HAVE to attack other players when you play Risk but that is a big part of what D&D is all about. Ah. so if we're not playing D&D the way that you do, we're playing the game the wrong way. Nice.



Ooo, didn't see this one.

This would work better if D&D was a free for-all roleplay, with little rules.
However.
D&D is a game.
If you are so powerful as to make the person who wants to play the fighter bored - bored to the point that they might as well quit - well... you just lost a player. Repeat. Again.
What's the point of playing a team game solo? :smallconfused:I wouldn't be playing a solo game, since the fighter wouldn't be quitting just because other characters are more powerful. I don't play with people who base whether they have fun or not on how powerful their character is.


No it isn't, because the fighter has no other options. The fighter should be best in a fight because it's what he does.Not quite... The fighter should be best at swinging a sharpened piece of metal without magical aidin a fight because it's what he does, which seems to be generally the case.


They earned the same experience, why the disparity?Because one swings a sharpened hunk of metal, and the other alters the laws of the universe.


By definition, the wizard should gain a lot less power, because "bending the laws of physics" shouldn't be [b]easy[b]. Circular logic.

Dausuul
2007-12-05, 10:27 AM
Because one swings a sharpened hunk of metal, and the other alters the laws of the universe.

The wizard is not altering the laws of the universe. If they could be altered, they wouldn't be laws. The wizard is merely exploiting a set of laws that don't exist in our own world, just like the fighter is exploiting the laws that do exist in our world. Which set of laws happens to offer more power to the user is a completely arbitrary decision.

THERE IS NO INTRINSIC REASON WHY WHAT THE WIZARD DOES SHOULD BE MORE POWERFUL THAN WHAT THE FIGHTER DOES. Wizard propaganda notwithstanding.

Now, in 3.5E, what the wizard does is in fact more powerful than what the fighter does, but that's because the game happened to be built that way. It could just as easily be built another way, without harming verisimilitude in the least.

Satyr
2007-12-05, 10:28 AM
Should a fighter be on the same level as a wizard? No; because one swings a sword, the other changes the laws of physics.

Should a monk be on the same level as a cleric? No; because while one takes the human(oid) body to it's limits, the other has an all-powerful diety on his/her side.


I could hardly agree less with you. AIn a heroic fantasy game, a brave fighter/warrior/knight should always be better than a cowardly sorcerer. That's what heroics is albout: Facing the danger and solving the problems yourself. Not your summoned minions, your technolopgical items (magic of a cetain degree can not be differentiated from technology anymore...) or whatever You. Spellcasting is still anti-heroic and therefore it should be treated equal to a heroic approach. In a truly heroic game, heroism should be the focuis rthe cowardly tactics of an untouchable, mindwarping wizard. That makes them ideal antagonists, though.



I've got some theories about why people rant about balance (which I'll put in the spoiler below), but on a fundamental level, why do you think we expect the classes to be balanced?

Because there is a fair chance that people like you and me are playing in the same group and the only fair way to find a solution for
"warriors=heroes, magicians=!heroes, heroes>non-heroes"
and
"magicians=reality warper, reality warper > non reality warper"
is to treat everyome the same, everything else is just not fair. And like all good compromises, it is equally disappointing for all parties.

Premier
2007-12-05, 10:29 AM
Regarding the original post.

What you've accidentally done with your post is stumble into the old-school concept of balance. The idea of "balance = every character has the same combat power", or "balance = every character has the same combat power against each other" was invented by 3E.

In original D&D, the concept of balance could be described as:
- Every class brings some unique capability to the party.
- An even spread of the basic classes (fighter, thief, cleric, wizard) results in a party that's capable to handle any adventuring situation.
- A party lacking any one basic class is not capable to handle every possible type of adventuring situation.

So, for instance, while the thief is not even remotely capable of standing up to anyone else in a straight fight, nevertheless gives the party unique abilities by detecting and disarming traps, opening locked doors, disrupting enemy spells by harassment or taking out enemy controllers with backstabbing. Similarly, a wizard vs. fighter battle would be always pretty one-sided in one direction or the other (depending on spell loadout, level and circumstances), and yet, both classes are essential for a dungeon foray.

So, yeah. It seems like you just prefer the oldschool concept of balance rather than the MMORPG-inspired PvP optimisation of 3E.

Dausuul
2007-12-05, 10:35 AM
Regarding the original post.

What you've accidentally done with your post is stumble into the old-school concept of balance. The idea of "balance = every character has the same combat power", or "balance = every character has the same combat power against each other" was invented by 3E.

In original D&D, the concept of balance could be described as:
- Every class brings some unique capability to the party.
- An even spread of the basic classes (fighter, thief, cleric, wizard) results in a party that's capable to handle any adventuring situation.
- A party lacking any one basic class is not capable to handle every possible type of adventuring situation.

So, for instance, while the thief is not even remotely capable of standing up to anyone else in a straight fight, nevertheless gives the party unique abilities by detecting and disarming traps, opening locked doors, disrupting enemy spells by harassment or taking out enemy controllers with backstabbing. Similarly, a wizard vs. fighter battle would be always pretty one-sided in one direction or the other (depending on spell loadout, level and circumstances), and yet, both classes are essential for a dungeon foray.

So, yeah. It seems like you just prefer the oldschool concept of balance rather than the MMORPG-inspired PvP optimisation of 3E.

3E is not balanced with PvP in mind, and very few people suggest that it should be; players are expected to fight monsters, not each other. It is balanced with the idea that everybody should be able to contribute in combat. Not necessarily equally--the rogue is a particular example of a character whose greatest strengths are outside of combat--but in a game as combat-heavy as D&D was designed to be, if there's a class that can't contribute in a fight, the player of that class is going to be sitting around bored for an awful lot of the game.

Roderick_BR
2007-12-05, 10:36 AM
Because one swings a sharpened hunk of metal, and the other alters the laws of the universe.
Fighters do more than just swing a sharpened hunk of metal. They fight. They maneuver combats. Or they should. D&D rules nerfs anything that is not magic.
I agree that in direct PvP combat, a wizard should be more powerful than a fighter, but not completely overwhelm it.
"Wizards casts magic, duh" is a horrible excuse to allow one player to be completely more powerful than any other party member just because he wrote wizard/cleric/druid on his character sheet.
Seriously, why even bother with a game like that, that punishes a player because he decided to choose something different?

As for your "circular logic": No. "altering the laws of the universe" shouldn't be easy. But wizards can sneeze and do it. That's not right. The way things are, a DM will just have to forbid full casters, for the reason alone that wizards are receiving too much power, almost for free. Would you just start throwing artifacts and epic level itens, and feats and powers at the meeler characters? No? A lot of thing wizards gets from middle to higher levels should be pushed into epic level. For starters.

When WotC release Wizards and Dragons (with a flavor similar to the Mage the Ascension from White Wolf, where magic IS overpowered) then I won't complain about balance. Until there, D&D is still "doing it wrong".

Name_Here
2007-12-05, 11:05 AM
There's nothing wrong with having a game where there is a disparity in power between the players. Why do you assume that it is necessary?
Because not everybody has fun sitting around watching other people's charecters do incredibly cool things while all they can contribute is "I Coup de Grace the goblin/ogre/dragon that the wizard just disabled." As hard as that concept is somepeople actually want to be more useful in a situation than an NPC would be.

I wouldn't be playing a solo game, since the fighter wouldn't be quitting just because other characters are more powerful. I don't play with people who base whether they have fun or not on how powerful their character is.

Good to know that you play with people who have fun basking in the glory of the wizard. Most of us don't play with people who don't have fun sitting there listening to the Wizard and druid do the whole job by themselves with them contributing very little to the victory.


Not quite... The fighter should be best at swinging a sharpened piece of metal without magical aidin a fight because it's what he does, which seems to be generally the case.

Because one swings a sharpened hunk of metal, and the other alters the laws of the universe.

As air tight as that arguement is it doesn't change the fact that some players don't want to have to play one of the big 3 to actually contribute to the game

Craig1f
2007-12-05, 11:09 AM
In my level 16 campaign, the Wizard has always been the first one to go down quickly. He's frail, has horrible reflex and fort saves, and is a huge target.

The melee combatants take a beating, but they survive. And I also agree with the argument that everything doesn't have to be balanced.

I mean, has anyone made a party of just wizards and clerics? I don't think so. If that starts happening, then I would say things need to be fixed. But as it stands, you're better off with a wizard, a fighter-type, a rogueish type, and a healer-type, than you are with two clerics and two wizards.

I do think that Barbarians should get Improved Bull Rush and Unarmed Combat as bonus feats, and Fighters should get Improved Trip. These things add nice flavor and choices in combat.

Reinboom
2007-12-05, 11:13 AM
I mean, has anyone made a party of just wizards and clerics? I don't think so. If that starts happening, then I would say things need to be fixed. But as it stands, you're better off with a wizard, a fighter-type, a rogueish type, and a healer-type, than you are with two clerics and two wizards..

I actually have had a party of full casters.
And I've had multiple groups that have decided to say 'screw you' to the fighter, or only dip into it for 2 levels and would rather take cleric instead.


=Edit=
And this is about when I started my big list of banned spells.

Toliudar
2007-12-05, 11:25 AM
I troll the recruiting threads on this site a fair bit, and I have not noticed a preponderance of full casters in the builds presented. In essence, even if many people see the builds as the most powerful, that's not turning out to be the deciding factor in what they choose to play. Despite the many, many threads about CoDzilla, it's been my experience that a primary divine caster is still less likely to show up in a list of characters.

I'd like to suggest that many, many people LIKE playing skill monkey and warrior classes. They require less paperwork, they fit a WIDE range of concepts, and there is something really deep-down satisfying about shoving a notional piece of metal into a notional bad guy.

I have no problem with tweaks to the Fighter, Monk and perhaps Ranger classes to bring them up towards the level of the ToB martial classes. Those who have chosen to make warrior builds should have an opportunity to contribute. But seriously...if you don't know that higher level spells will give people increased flexibility later on, you haven't looked at the game at all.

So, until there's a dearth of people actually PLAYING martial classes, I'd say we're going to be okay.

Indon
2007-12-05, 11:34 AM
From the view of the game's makers, it's because the Customer Is Always Right.

And many of the customers of this game think it's ridiculous to play a Wizard or Cleric in a way that doesn't outright steal the show from players of other classes.

And so that's a problem.

From a player's view, it doesn't matter unless you make it matter... by overshadowing your other party members.

Matthew
2007-12-05, 12:02 PM
Very true, Indon. Balance between the Classes matters to Wizards because there is a vocal online community that says it does.

Of course, the standardised experience point progressions, wealth by level tables, challenge ratings and the modular nature of the multi classing rules sit uneasily with feats, spells, skills and prestige classes that cost the same to acquire, but have varying power levels. It seems D20 attempted to achieve balance, but only half heartedly.

Personally, I think that roleplaying games are too complex to accomodate absolute balance, but that power levels should be broadly similar between classes with the same rate of advancement.

streakster
2007-12-05, 12:03 PM
Let's see...

Endless debate over the same issues, again and again. Check.

Setting forth scenarios that show your favored character in the best possible light. Check.

Mocking the scenarios set by others. Check.

Claiming to know more than WOTC, or miraculously diving their intentions. Check.

Arguing over the definitions of various terms. Check.

So let's see... we only need someone to suggest the ToB, and someone else to challenge someone to a PbP grudge match.

Any takers? The sooner the we get all these requirements out of the way, the sooner we can get to the next Wizard vs Fighter thread!

Matthew
2007-12-05, 12:08 PM
Somebody complaining that this is 'another Fighters versus Wizards Thread and going nowhere in an endless cycle...' - Check. :smallbiggrin:

Bosh
2007-12-05, 12:09 PM
There's nothing wrong with having a game where there is a disparity in power between the players. Why do you assume that it is necessary?
D&D is, at heart, a game in which a team of characters who depend on each other engage in tactical and strategic (more stategic in the old editions, more tactical in the new ones) combat to obtain objectives. In that sort of game large power disparities are not appropriate since it undermines the concept of a team that depends on each other that is central to D&D.


Ah. so if we're not playing D&D the way that you do, we're playing the game the wrong way. Nice.
Nope, just that if you play a campaign that departs radically from what D&D is all about then there's probably better games out there for the sort of campaign that you want to play. For example I like intrigue-heavy campaigns in historical worlds with low key magic, trying to run that sort of campaign with D&D would certainly be possible but there are many systems out there that would be MUCH better suited for running that sort of game.

streakster
2007-12-05, 12:11 PM
Ahh, thank you. Forgot that one.

Oh man, I forgot more! Have we done incomprehensible wall of misspelled, all lowercase text yet? What about the complex math formula that only three people reading the thread understand, and all disagree about?

Counterspin
2007-12-05, 12:11 PM
Things should be balanced because no one should have their play experience ruined by picking a class that was going to be terrible no matter what they did. And approximate balance is a daunting, but not impossible task.

Craig1f
2007-12-05, 12:29 PM
Also, keep in mind, that originally, DnD adventures were meant to be played up to level 12. If you were about level 8, you were reknown throughout the lands. If you were above level 12, legends were written about you, and you probably owned a continent.

Wizards are supposed to be the ultimate sources of divine power. But, they are weak in many situations. They can be poisoned, ambushed, grappled, lose their component pouch, not be given the opportunity to rest, etc.

Fighter-types lead the charge, allowing wizards to buff up and prepare spells. They can go without sleep (with only small penalties). They can grapple. They can operate in anti-magic fields. Everyone has their role.

Wizards are not like the Belt of Battle, as in "why would you NOT get that?" I don't have a strong desire to play a wizard. It's too much book-keeping, spell-picking, trying not to get hit because I have 3 hit points, cowering behind the stronger and more charismatic characters, etc.

And who the hell wants to be a cleric? I mean, they're powerful, but BORING. No one appreciates a cleric who memorizes attack spells instead of heal spells. If you're casting summon monster VI instead of Healing your allies, your party isn't going to appreciate your contribution as a cleric. We always have a hard time finding a cleric, which is why I played an Eldritch Disciple last time (my wizard ally is pissed that I kept casting Righteous Smite on the BBEG instead of curing his blindness, but I kept trying to move towards him and he kept Dim Dooring blindly).

I don't see a huge problem here. No character is marginalized except, maybe, the monk. But the monk is the guy that passes the DC 35 listen check to hear ninjas sneaking through the adjacent room, and does a flying jump kick for 30 points of NONLETHAL damage to subdue a guard that mistakingly thinks we're the enemy, without killing him, so ... I'd argue against anyone who says he is not a valuable character. Tell me how a wizard can do those things?

Jayabalard
2007-12-05, 12:41 PM
D&D is, at heart, a game in which a team of characters who depend on each other engage in tactical and strategic (more stategic in the old editions, more tactical in the new ones) combat to obtain objectives. In that sort of game large power disparities are not appropriate since it undermines the concept of a team that depends on each other that is central to D&D.D&D, at it's heart, is a roleplaying game; people who don't play it as a tactical/strategic battle game aren't playing the game incorrectly, and I find it fairly insulting that you continue to insinuate that this is the case.

There is nothing wrong with large power disparities.

you can have a team with power disparities.
you can have situations that require you to depend on your teammates with power disparities.
you can have both roles that overlap and roles that don't with power disparities.

Nothing about the power disparity itself undermines anything that is central to D&D. You just don't like it.


As air tight as that arguement is it doesn't change the fact that some players don't want to have to play one of the big 3 to actually contribute to the gameThat seems to be an intrinsic problem with people who measure their contribution to the game strictly by the mechanical effectiveness of your character.

For the people that I play with. there's no basking in anyone's glory, or watching any single player doing the job themselves. Everyone contributes, no matter how mechanically ineffectual or strong their character is.


Nope, just that if you play a campaign that departs radically from what D&D is all about then there's probably better games out there for the sort of campaign that you want to play. For example I like intrigue-heavy campaigns in historical worlds with low key magic, trying to run that sort of campaign with D&D would certainly be possible but there are many systems out there that would be MUCH better suited for running that sort of game.[/QUOTE]


THERE IS NO INTRINSIC REASON WHY WHAT THE WIZARD DOES SHOULD BE MORE POWERFUL THAN WHAT THE FIGHTER DOES. Shouting doesn't make this correct. You'd be correct if you were arguing that there is no intrinsic reason to require the game to be in a high magic world... lots of people prefer to play in low magic worlds, or where magic and non-magic are more balanced. But D&D's niche happens to be a high magic world, and in a high magic world, what a wizard does should definitely be more powerful than what the fighter does (that's an intrinsic property of a high magic world).

IMO, the fact that D&D does that niche as well as it does is the only reason to play D&D over other RPGs.

Craig1f
2007-12-05, 12:51 PM
You'd be correct if you were arguing that there is no intrinsic reason to require the game to be in a high magic world... lots of people prefer to play in low magic worlds, or where magic and non-magic are more balanced. But D&D's niche happens to be a high magic world, and in a high magic world, what a wizard does should definitely be more powerful than what the fighter does (that's an intrinsic property of a high magic world).

IMO, the fact that D&D does that niche as well as it does is the only reason to play D&D over other RPGs.

That's a good point. DnD is a high-magic world. I mean, look at the weapons ... you can't get a sharper weapon, or a sturdier weapon, or a more balanced weapon. You can only improve weapons by making them magic. Everything about DnD is magic. The world revolves around magic. In our level 16 campaign, where we fought a super-wizard that started the battle with Time Stop, I think the most effective character against him was a Dervish. The wizard's Spell Turning caused our spellcasters some serious problems.

Until I see a surplus of people wanting to be a wizard or cleric, which I really don't see, I really don't have a problem with balance. We need more clerics in our campaigns as it is.

In my third campaign, the focus is on role playing (which I don't really like). I have a Dragon Fire Adept. That's not a very powerful class, but I'm having fun with it. I can't hold a candle to the Druid in the group, but I'm still having a good time.

Jayabalard
2007-12-05, 12:55 PM
Fighters do more than just swing a sharpened hunk of metal. They fight. They maneuver combats. Or they should. D&D rules nerfs anything that is not magic.So, they swing sharpened chunks of metal and move around; that's not equivalent to telling the laws of physics to sith down and shut up.



"Wizards casts magic, duh" is a horrible excuse to allow one player to be completely more powerful than any other party member just because he wrote wizard/cleric/druid on his character sheet.Why? I don't see anything wrong with having strong classes, weak classes and ones in between, and allowing people to play the one that they want.


Seriously, why even bother with a game like that, that punishes a player because he decided to choose something different?How is anyone being punished. If you don't want to play a class that is intrinsically weak, don't choose to play a weak class.


As for your "circular logic": No. "altering the laws of the universe" shouldn't be easy. But wizards can sneeze and do it. That's not right.You're using this assumption to prove itself, which is circular reasoning, so it's a farily meaningless argument.

Counterspin
2007-12-05, 12:57 PM
Arrgh, still can't delete on these boards.

Alex12
2007-12-05, 01:15 PM
So, they swing sharpened chunks of metal and move around; that's not equivalent to telling the laws of physics to sith down and shut up.
That's correct, it isn't the same. Telling the laws of physics to sit down and shut up should be stronger, but should also be much harder to learn how to do. That isn't reflected right now. It takes the same amount of XP for a Fighter to get to level 20 as it takes a wizard to do the same.


Why? I don't see anything wrong with having strong classes, weak classes and ones in between, and allowing people to play the one that they want.

How is anyone being punished. If you don't want to play a class that is intrinsically weak, don't choose to play a weak class.

There's this little thing called flavor. Roleplaying. Fluff. Maybe I want to play a monk because I think it'll add an interesting dynamic to the group. But I'm punished for that. I'm punished for trying to make things more interesting. That's a bad thing.

Dausuul
2007-12-05, 01:33 PM
Shouting doesn't make this correct. You'd be correct if you were arguing that there is no intrinsic reason to require the game to be in a high magic world... lots of people prefer to play in low magic worlds, or where magic and non-magic are more balanced. But D&D's niche happens to be a high magic world, and in a high magic world, what a wizard does should definitely be more powerful than what the fighter does (that's an intrinsic property of a high magic world).

Now who's using circular reasoning?

How do we know D&D is set in a high-magic world? Because wizards are super-powerful. Why are wizards super-powerful? Because D&D is set in a high-magic world...

The game is built on the assumption that wizards are super-powerful, yes. However, my point is that this is a choice by the game designers, and could just as easily be made the other way. The mere fact that the wizard does things not physically possible in our world does not mean the wizard is automatically more powerful than a fighter, which appears to be what you are asserting here:



They earned the same experience, why the disparity?

Because one swings a sharpened hunk of metal, and the other alters the laws of the universe.

Nothing in there about high-magic.

Note also that "high-magic" can be defined in various ways. For instance, you could have a world bursting with faeries, unicorns, dragons, and demons, awash in magical swords and trinkets made by these fantastic beings, but in which ordinary humans had only a small ability to influence the surging powers of magic all around them. That would, by some definitions, be a high-magic setting, in which the wizard is still weaker than the fighter.

The only way you can construe a high-magic setting to require wizards being uber-powerful is to define "high-magic setting" as "setting where wizards are uber-powerful."

Hzurr
2007-12-05, 01:34 PM
Let's see...

Endless debate over the same issues, again and again. Check.

Setting forth scenarios that show your favored character in the best possible light. Check.

Mocking the scenarios set by others. Check.

Claiming to know more than WOTC, or miraculously diving their intentions. Check.

Arguing over the definitions of various terms. Check.

So let's see... we only need someone to suggest the ToB, and someone else to challenge someone to a PbP grudge match.

Any takers? The sooner the we get all these requirements out of the way, the sooner we can get to the next Wizard vs Fighter thread!

Also, no one has mentioned Hitler yet


Yeah...I didn't really mean for this to become a wizards vs. fighters thread, but no matter.



One thing that I think separates the kinds of answers I'm seeing is what group the poster is used to playing with.

I've never really been in a group where one player really dominates everything, and tries to steal the thunder of everything else (I've been in a group where a guy tried, but he weren't really clever enough to make a character that could do it well. A 28 int wizard only gets you so far when your real life int is 11). So I guess that the reason I'm not as big on everything must be balanced is because I've never experienced a big drop in gameplay quality between the pimped out cleric/druid and the fighter. It's not unusual to see a monk in our group, and the monk character usually isn't forced to the sidelines.

Draco Ignifer
2007-12-05, 01:35 PM
So, they swing sharpened chunks of metal and move around; that's not equivalent to telling the laws of physics to sith down and shut up.

A powerful fighter using the right feats, such as leap attack and shock trooper, can carve through a dragon or golem even without a special weapon. Let me restate this. Someone with a mere sharpened piece of steel, and not even an exceptionally sharpened piece, can cut through a monster with hide stronger than that of any animal on earth, with plates of armor probably inches thick, or even through a giant walking chunk of steel with enough strength, skill, and willpower.

Further, they can kill both of these monsters with the same. Or, if you want to make it more implausible, with different weapons. So, if you use a blunt weapon, you're assuming that this guy less than a tenth the size of what he's attacking can hit the dragon so hard that they rupture its organs and bones. This would be like charging a tank with a sledgehammer and killing the people inside of it. The same person, using a pike, is somehow capable of disabling a walking chunk of steel so badly that it can no longer function. This isn't chopping it into little pieces which can't move anymore... this is running through an angry statue and somehow destroying its motive capabilities.

This is to say nothing of the fact that he can also shrug off blows from both, which is about like the guy charging a tank being shot point blank by the turret, throwing off a catch-phrase, and then delivering his crew-splattering slam. Or possibly being run over by it - I'm not being picky here.

How is this NOT telling the laws of physics to sit down and shut up? And if they can both tell the laws of physics to sit down and shut up, then why should the fact that one does so by babbling and waving his hands make him more powerful than the guy who does so by smacking things with a sharp metal stick? They're both equally implausable, and in D&D, they both require equal training.

Craig1f
2007-12-05, 01:48 PM
That's correct, it isn't the same. Telling the laws of physics to sit down and shut up should be stronger, but should also be much harder to learn how to do. That isn't reflected right now. It takes the same amount of XP for a Fighter to get to level 20 as it takes a wizard to do the same.

I think this expected to be accomplished through the Scribe Scroll feat, which requires the Wizard to spend XP scribing scrolls, which are inevitably needed to supplement their arsenal, since they are short on spell slots compared to Sorcerers. There are also spells that have XP costs. Unfortunately, players tend to just buy scrolls, or run out of spells and act as if it was inevitable.

Perhaps if the gold cost of scribing scrolls was reduced, Wizards would scribe more scrolls, thus falling a bit behind in XP.

Actually, in the process of typing this, I think that a good game mechanic would be that 10% of a Wizard's XP is set aside for the purposes of spending on anything that costs XP other than leveling. For example, permanency spells, scribing scrolls, spells with XP costs, enchantments, etc. That would definitely make the Wizard more interesting, while mitigating their power at the same time.

Werewindlefr
2007-12-05, 01:54 PM
Because it isn't any fun to have no purpose in an adventuring party. Seriously, why should there even be any fighters in an adventuring party? What do they contribute to the group? The answer? HPs.

HPs don't win battles. HPs aren't interesting.


Don't you want to contribute to the group?
But you're seeing things only in term of power. This isn't a strategy game, this isn't diablo: some people want to play a fighter to be like Conan, or to be like Aragorn. Some people play fighters because they find the idea cool. In roleplaying games, some people (and I think those people are the only ones who will have a reason to play RPGs over video games) don't like to think in terms of power first.

For those people, balance suck. BIG time.



That depends. If we have a 15th level fighter and a 15th level wizard, yes, they should be on the same level. This is implied by the word "level".

Nope. Level means "I have done this much adventuring" Why should a fighter and a wizard gain the same amount of power for accomplishing the same things? That implies that everything is fundamentaly and intrinsically balanced in the game universe -which isn't always the case.

Kyeudo
2007-12-05, 01:56 PM
Here is the biggest mechanical reason for class balance that I can find: Its assumed in the rules.

Here's an example:
1 Level 15 Fighter: CR 15
1 Level 15 Wizard: CR 15
1 Level 15 Rogue: CR 15
1 Wizard 5/Initiate of the Sevenfold Veil 10: CR 15
1 Level 15 Swordsage: CR 15

The CR system, as we all know, is broken. It doesn't address some things properly (like that damn crap). However, its a generaly decent guideline for power. As you can see, a 15th level fighter is supposed to be the same level of difficulty to defeat as a 15th level Wizard. However, which of my example encounters would you least like to face? It probably isn't the fighter. It's probably the Wizard 5/Initiate of the Sevenfold Veil 10.

This means that a fundamental assumption of the rules is wrong. If something about the rules is wrong, it should be fixed, or else other rules made based on that assumption are also wrong.



Now, that said, the greatest reason for class balance is that this is a GROUP game! You are supposed to be able to play what you want to play and have fun as long as you don't max/min your character or min/max your character over the power level of your fellow players. You are supposed to be able to contribute meaningfully at every level of play to the party.

If you are a Fighter, you should not ever be out fought by the party cleric. If you are the Rogue, you should not be out skill monkey'd by the party wizard.

This doesn't mean that the Wizard or Cleric need to be brought down to the Fighter's level of suck, but that the Fighter and the Rogue should be elevated to the level of the Wizard and Cleric. This way, everyone is awesome and feels happy.

horseboy
2007-12-05, 02:05 PM
I actually have had a party of full casters.
And I've had multiple groups that have decided to say 'screw you' to the fighter, or only dip into it for 2 levels and would rather take cleric instead.


=Edit=
And this is about when I started my big list of banned spells.

quoted for truth. As I stated in another thread, when my buddies go to conventions they take three clerics and a wizard. (Well, okay one of the clerics is a mystic thruge of Weejas, so it's really 2.5 clerics and 1.5 wizards) They can crack a module's worth of CR appropriate encounters in 30-45 minutes. For the rest of the time they're out saving the rest of the tables (Nuke's cleric is the cleric of the travel god, so he can dim door and therefore move to other tables) that went with the "conventional" meatshield and healbot. All this is of course provided that their friend LaMontaine isn't there with his gnome illusionist that can solo modules himself. All this, while using the restrictions of Living Greyhawk.

Me? I chose to play a fighter, because I don't like D&D and I'm just here to drink and hang out with my buddies while they play a game. Fighters are perfect for that.

Snadgeros
2007-12-05, 02:07 PM
Alright, this is my final post in this thread before I wash my hands of this matter forever. I will address every major point brought up thus far.

1. Why should the game be balanced?
Because people like to mix things up and play different classes, but if this comes at the cost of effectiveness, it's not worth it. Sitting around doing little to nothing while the wizard/druid/cleric mops the floor with the enemies isn't fun. I don't want to watch him do stuff, I want to do stuff too!

2. Why should spellcasting be innately more powerful than combat?
Oh sure, spells alter the very fundamentals of reality, but according to the fluff, mastering this takes years of study and dedication. Why is the wizard who spent 20 years learning cantrips suddenly able to stop time after only 8 hours of rest? Combined with his ability to cherrypick spells, he's able to combine things that were never meant to be combined and become an unstoppable Batman-force. This is largely due to the high-magic setting of DnD. Okay, fine, make magic available at every corner shop, but it should have a cost greater than "eschew materials." A wizard should not be able to stop time for the same amount of energy it takes for a fighter to swing a sword. Face the facts, people, with all of the core and splat spells wizards have available, they're untouchable (see: contingency, dimension door, time stop, rope trick, etc.)

If you're not going to limit casters, then buff fighters. ToB seems to work well with the maneuvers available, but then that seems to turn DnD into "People who cast spells win." For those of you who say that "fighters just swing sharp pieces of metal around" you could just as easily say "wizards just read books!" This kind of strawman argument is a logical fallacy: you're simplifying the opponent's side. Swordplay is about more than just being able to hit stuff, you have to dodge, counter, block, parry, and strike all with split-second reflexes. Try taking up fencing if you don't believe me.

3. To quote, "If you don't want to play a class that's intrinsically weak, don't choose to play a weak class."
Worst. Argument. Ever. If everyone were to follow this logic, then WotC would just write all of the other classes out of the game and you'd have to play Batman or CoDzilla. Honestly, how much fun can it be playing a wizard for the 15th campaign in a row? But apparently you have no choice, because if you switch, you're instantly inferior and weak.

4. Monks suck.
They do not! I challenge you to name 1 other class with all of the following:
-Fantastic saves in every category
-90 ft movement speed
-High AC
-Flurry of blows
-Lethal or non-lethal damage without penalties
-Lots of useful class skills
-No offhand penalties
-Low cost of equipment (also a good candidate for VoP)
-Semi-useful fluff stuff (immunities, ki, etc.)

Combine all of this with spring attack, mobility, and dodge and you have yourself a combat role: hit and run. Sure, you can't use flurry, but it works great with a reach weapon. Monk X/Drunken Master 5 is fantastic for using ladders as reach weapons, not to mention the other cool stuff drunken master gets. Monks work fine if played right and can be as useful as a fighter with a little extra effort. Of course, this still means he's underpowered compared to casters, but who isn't?

That's it. I'm done. I am finished with this thread so don't bother asking me questions because I will not respond. Please resume devolving into a fighter vs. wizard thread.

AstralFire
2007-12-05, 02:12 PM
And speaking of 'D&D is high magic'... Eberron certainly disagrees with that.

Kioran
2007-12-05, 02:16 PM
This doesn't mean that the Wizard or Cleric need to be brought down to the Fighter's level of suck, but that the Fighter and the Rogue should be elevated to the level of the Wizard and Cleric. This way, everyone is awesome and feels happy.

I agree with most of your assessments, but this one strikes me as.......misguided. First off, I wouldn´t be happy if the increase in power trivializes challenges - where´s the satisfaction in killing a Troll when you can easily kill 4? And how long before your lvl 10 Character kill Adult Dragons? And if monsters increase in power, the relative power lvl stays the same - the Wizard gets, in relation, nerfed, it´s just that the numbers got bigger. Inflation. Not worthwhile, imo, allthough balance can be achievewd through it........

AstralFire
2007-12-05, 02:20 PM
I agree with most of your assessments, but this one strikes me as.......misguided. First off, I wouldn´t be happy if the increase in power trivializes challenges - where´s the satisfaction in killing a Troll when you can easily kill 4? And how long before your lvl 10 Character kill Adult Dragons? And if monsters increase in power, the relative power lvl stays the same - the Wizard gets, in relation, nerfed, it´s just that the numbers got bigger. Inflation. Not worthwhile, imo, allthough balance can be achievewd through it........

Bring the Wizard and Cleric up to the Fighter and Monk from level 1 - 4. (Honestly not a big power disparity here anyway, but too many obvious shiny choices for spellcasters turn out to be bad ideas if you're new.)

Bring the Fighter and Monk up to the Wizard and Cleric from level 11 to 16.

Bring in Epic Fighter and Monk from level 17 to 20.

I believe that this is actually a decent amount of the design philosophy behind 4E, anyway... They change the level distribution so for casters, what was level 15 to 20 is now level 21 to 30, etc.

But until the Wizard hits 9th level spells, really, it's easy to likewise adjust pre-epic monsters to pose a challenge to a stronger party without making things feel ridiculous.

Name_Here
2007-12-05, 02:30 PM
But you're seeing things only in term of power. This isn't a strategy game, this isn't diablo: some people want to play a fighter to be like Conan, or to be like Aragorn. Some people play fighters because they find the idea cool. In roleplaying games, some people (and I think those people are the only ones who will have a reason to play RPGs over video games) don't like to think in terms of power first.

For those people, balance suck. BIG time.

Yeah and when their character instead of being Conan or Aragorn turns out to be at best a speed bump for whatever the monster of the week is and at worst a squire for the druid and wizard? You think that their going to continue thinking that their character concept is cool when they can't do anything that the characters did?

Players want to have fun with their characters not watch other people have fun with their's.


Nope. Level means "I have done this much adventuring" Why should a fighter and a wizard gain the same amount of power for accomplishing the same things? That implies that everything is fundamentaly and intrinsically balanced in the game universe -which isn't always the case.

Why should wizards learn how to stop time because he killed an ogre with a flaming strike? I could see why a fighter would get better at swinging his sword fighting creatures but why should a wizard gain new spells that are completely unrelated to his old spells by casting his old spells?

AstralFire
2007-12-05, 02:33 PM
Real life isn't fair.

Games aren't real life for that precise reason. People use them as a diversion.

Nowhere Girl
2007-12-05, 02:37 PM
This thread is silly. Why even ask such a question when the answer is (or should be) patently obvious?

Here are some other, equally brilliant questions:

Why solid dice? Wouldn't liquid dice work just as well?

Why adventuring? Why not a game based on the day-to-day drudgery of being a medieval peasant?

Why player characters? Why shouldn't we all just sit around and quietly watch as the DM moves NPCs around in his/her world?

Why roleplaying? Why loot? Why fighting?

Kaelik
2007-12-05, 02:39 PM
1 Wizard 5/Initiate of the Sevenfold Veil 10: CR 15

At least get it right. There are 7 non-epic levels of Initiate of the Sevenfold and you can't take the first one until level 9 or ten anyway.

Dausuul
2007-12-05, 02:40 PM
This thread is silly. Why even ask such a question when the answer is (or should be) patently obvious?

You'd think it would be, but apparently it isn't.


Why adventuring? Why not a game based on the day-to-day drudgery of being a medieval peasant?

I was going to quote Monty Python here, but I can't... it's just too easy.


Why player characters? Why shouldn't we all just sit around and quietly watch as the DM moves NPCs around in his/her world?

I've been in those games...

Kyeudo
2007-12-05, 02:47 PM
At least get it right. There are 7 non-epic levels of Initiate of the Sevenfold and you can't take the first one until level 9 or ten anyway.

It was an example. I don't have the books in front of me right now, so I couldn't double check. Still, you get the point. Balance is assumed by the rules, but doesn't acutal exist, which throws the rules off.

Hzurr
2007-12-05, 03:14 PM
This thread is silly. Why even ask such a question when the answer is (or should be) patently obvious?

YOU'RE silly!

:smallsmile:

The question exists because there are different answers/opinions. I've never seen the "inbalance" between spellcasters and melee characters as a big deal, but some people really get worked up about it. This is just different people expressing their opinion on the subject.



Why solid dice? Wouldn't liquid dice work just as well?

Liquid dice would be AWESOME. Maybe use them to replace different dice sizes?
"Ok, your magical longsword does 1d-waters + 2d-orangejuice worth of damage."
"Don't forget sneak attack!"
"Oh right, add in another 3d-milks."

Nowhere Girl
2007-12-05, 03:21 PM
YOU'RE silly!

:smallsmile:

The question exists because there are different answers/opinions. I've never seen the "inbalance" between spellcasters and melee characters as a big deal, but some people really get worked up about it. This is just different people expressing their opinion on the subject.

Why not have the imbalance in reverse, then?

Why not have all melee characters look like Mihawk in One Piece, while all spellcasters look like the hapless wizard in that old Dungeons & Dragons cartoon? There's a fictional precedent for both, so fair game, right? Sure, it'd be unbalanced, but all of the people who play wizards won't mind if their only rule is "luggage carrier," right?

(To clarify: Mihawk casually cuts entire sailing ships in half "to kill time," redirects bullets with his sword while sitting down without even bothering to stand up, and is said to be able to cut the elements themselves.)

Draz74
2007-12-05, 03:29 PM
I know I'm repeating what's already been said, but:

Magic is supposed to be hard to use.

And those who feel like caster classes should inherently be superior to non-casters, IMHO, are always really imagining to themselves situations where 15th-level casters are interacting with 5th-level noncasters. (Unfortunately, there's a fair amount of literature that deals with situations like that, which give them the wrong impression.)

Green Bean
2007-12-05, 03:32 PM
And those who feel like caster classes should inherently be superior to non-casters, IMHO, are always really imagining to themselves situations where 15th-level casters are interacting with 5th-level noncasters. (Unfortunately, there's a fair amount of literature that deals with situations like that, which give them the wrong impression.)

Exactly. Yes, Gandalf is probably the most powerful member of the Fellowship. But that just means he's higher level than the rest of them, not that magic users are inherently more powerful.

BardicDuelist
2007-12-05, 03:35 PM
But apparently, it's just as easy to learn to stop time, spontaneously combust things, summon demons, and utter words of annihilation as it is to learn how to swing a sword pretty well. What is wrong with this picture?

Right there. That is the big problem with the way things work.

Kyeudo
2007-12-05, 03:37 PM
This will probably derail the thread, but for the most part Gandalf is a fighter with a glowy staff, especialy in the movies. In the books, he does all actualy discribed fighting with a sword, and never uses magic for more than setting a tree on fire (and I have heard that attributed to the elven ring he wears). In the movies, he even fights the Balor (which wasn't a battle fully discribed in the book) with a sword, not magic.

Gandalf is thus an example of how awesome high level fighters should be, not how high level wizards should be.

Matthew
2007-12-05, 03:41 PM
This will probably derail the thread, but for the most part Gandalf is a fighter with a glowy staff, especialy in the movies. In the books, he does all actualy discribed fighting with a sword, and never uses magic for more than setting a tree on fire (and I have heard that attributed to the elven ring he wears). In the movies, he even fights the Balor (which wasn't a battle fully discribed in the book) with a sword, not magic.

Gandalf is thus an example of how awesome high level fighters should be, not how high level wizards should be.

*Head Desk* As if this Thread didn't have enough problems already without somebody starting this nonesense (in my opinion) again...

Hzurr
2007-12-05, 03:49 PM
This will probably derail the thread, but for the most part Gandalf is a fighter with a glowy staff, especialy in the movies. In the books, he does all actualy discribed fighting with a sword, and never uses magic for more than setting a tree on fire (and I have heard that attributed to the elven ring he wears). In the movies, he even fights the Balor (which wasn't a battle fully discribed in the book) with a sword, not magic.

Gandalf is thus an example of how awesome high level fighters should be, not how high level wizards should be.

*pats head soothingly* Shhhhh...shhhhh. It's ok. It's ok. You don't know, but it will be ok...*hums a calming tune*

horseboy
2007-12-05, 03:50 PM
*Head Desk* As if this Thread didn't have enough problems already without somebody starting this nonesense (in my opinion) again...

I'm just praying that was sarcasm.

*Goes and looks for his sarcas-mo-tron.*

Surfing HalfOrc
2007-12-05, 04:03 PM
Why should wizards learn how to stop time because he killed an ogre with a flaming strike? I could see why a fighter would get better at swinging his sword fighting creatures but why should a wizard gain new spells that are completely unrelated to his old spells by casting his old spells?

Indeed. Why should a rogue gain abilities in pick-pocketing if they never pick a single pocket in their entire career? :smallwink:

That was a First Edition quirk. I haven't played a 3.X Rogue, so I'm not as sure of the "normal" complement of skills and abilities.

Name_Here
2007-12-05, 04:08 PM
Indeed. Why should a rogue gain abilities in pick-pocketing if they never pick a single pocket in their entire career? :smallwink:

That was a First Edition quirk. I haven't played a 3.X Rogue, so I'm not as sure of the "normal" complement of skills and abilities.

Well because obviously *mumble mumble mumble* which is why they can increase the skills of their choosing without anybody teaching them new techniques.

Satyr
2007-12-05, 04:09 PM
So, they swing sharpened chunks of metal and move around; that's not equivalent to telling the laws of physics to sith down and shut up.

I don't know why this "telling the laws of physics to sith down and shut up"
should be taken seriously. It's just a quote from a very impressive yet suposedly funny comic; it's not like thje First Commandment of Everything Good and Beautiful or something. It's just a steadily repeated weitty phrase, nothing more. Esspecially because it's obviously wrong.

You could as well say "magicians transform one form of energy into another" and this would be as true as the statement above.


Why? I don't see anything wrong with having strong classes, weak classes and ones in between, and allowing people to play the one that they want.

I would agree - but why should the cowardly wizard be the strong one and not the real hero?
There is a reason why the typical protagonist of a myth or most fantasy stories is a swordswinging, muscled warrior who has to fight against overwhelming odds, or a guy who outsmarts his opponent. And not an untouchable, invincible sorcerer who is never in real danger and nukes his victims - since they are no threat, you can hardly call them opponents from above.

Rachel Lorelei
2007-12-05, 04:09 PM
Gandalf is thus an example of how awesome high level fighters should be, not how high level wizards should be.

This has been covered lots of times, but no, Gandalf is actually an example of how awesome demigods should be. Gandalf is one of the Maiar, which are kind of lesser angels where the Valar are archangels (Eru Iluvatar, their and the world's creator, being Tolkien-World's God). Correspondingly, Melkor/Morgoth, the original bad guy (Sauron was a Maia and one of his servants) of Tolkien's world, is Lucifer--a fallen Archangel/Vala.

Middle-Earth's wizards are all Maiar, in fact--sent by the Valar to help Middle-Earth against Sauron... but not to match power with power. They were stripped of most of their (unspecified) powers and "clothed" in the bodies of old men, told to fight Sauron by persuading Men, not by direct force.

Gandalf, as with all Maia, has great strength of body and of will, which is what enables him to be a martial badass, fight a Balrog (Balrogs are also Maia, former servants of Valar other than Melkor/Morgoth, their forms corrupted into fire and shadow), and smash a stone bridge with his staff.

Gandalf is shown lighting fires (like the pinecones he hurls at worgs in The Hobbit), but then, he is the bearer of Narya, the Ring of Fire (one of the three rings for the Elven-kings under the sky). It's easy to explain--and strongly implied--that his ability with fire comes from the Ring.

What all of this means is that Gandalf is startlingly simple to depict in D&D terms--an Outsider with an artifact he barely uses, since the only wizardly thing we see him do (beyond minor displays of fire, easily associated with his Ring) is throw a beam of (magical, presumably) light from his hand to drive off some flying Nazgul.
So I guess the lesson is how awesome high-HD Outsiders with high racial stats are.

Werewindlefr
2007-12-05, 04:11 PM
You'd think it would be, but apparently it isn't.


No, I think the problem is that there isn't a single way to play D&D, but several, and in several of them "fairness", "power" and "balance" are irrelevant (and actually counterproductive). D&D 3.x allowed for several gameplay styles, but they are actually prioritizing the heroquest-like tiled-dungeon over the others. I don't have anything against people who play it that way, and they sure should be thought about when designing D&D, but they shouln't be the only ones. (Actually, since it's part of the game that a computer can handle better than a DM, it should be less and less the focus of D&D.)

Stop thinking that people who do not think "balance" is a priority, a need, or even beneficial are morons. This is a bit like the WoW players that came on other games' forums to explain why they were stupid not playing WoW. I like playing an "unbalanced" and "unfair" D&D, and there are other people that do (well, most european players I know, actually). It can make for a pleasant experience, one close to something like a book that the players and the DM write together. So no, the need for balance is certainly not obvious, or universaly true.

Kaelik
2007-12-05, 04:15 PM
I'm pretty sure the only thing Gandalf proves is that you look like a badass when you ECL is equal to the other 8 party members combined.

Roderick_BR
2007-12-05, 04:43 PM
Why adventuring? Why not a game based on the day-to-day drudgery of being a medieval peasant?
I actually played a game where everyone is a peasant, and the game's objective is to survive while the knights and wizards fight the giant demons. Actually very fun. It's a horror game, of course.


Why player characters? Why shouldn't we all just sit around and quietly watch as the DM moves NPCs around in his/her world?
I've been in those games too...


Why fighting?
To win the war (http://www.blastwavecomic.com/index.php?p=comic&nro=1)

horseboy
2007-12-05, 04:44 PM
What all of this means is that Gandalf is startlingly simple to depict in D&D terms--an Outsider with an artifact he barely uses, since the only wizardly thing we see him do (beyond minor displays of fire, easily associated with his Ring) is throw a beam of (magical, presumably) light from his hand to drive off some flying Nazgul.
So I guess the lesson is how awesome high-HD Outsiders with high racial stats are.

And the +6, holy, of slaying orc broadsword that he only pulled out around orcs to make them scream "Crap! it's the +6 holy, of slaying orc broadsword of doom! RUN *&^%$, RUN!"

Dausuul
2007-12-05, 04:46 PM
I like playing an "unbalanced" and "unfair" D&D, and there are other people that do (well, most european players I know, actually). It can make for a pleasant experience, one close to something like a book that the players and the DM write together. So no, the need for balance is certainly not obvious, or universaly true.

Once again, we have the "balance is actively bad" idea... I had a long discussion about it on another thread. There is apparently a certain type of class imbalance that makes for a good game in a certain gaming style. I could never get straight exactly what the key element of this imbalance was, though, or why it would not be an adequate solution to take a balanced system and say "Wizards in my world cast as if 2 levels higher than they actually are"--it is, after all, far easier to take a balanced system and unbalance it than the reverse.

Can you explain? What is the element of imbalance that you feel makes for a good game? How does it make the game better?

Nowhere Girl
2007-12-05, 04:50 PM
I actually played a game where everyone is a peasant, and the game's objective is to survive while the knights and wizards fight the giant demons. Actually very fun. It's a horror game, of course.

But you can, I assume, see the difference between that and a game where you're actually only playing day-to-day peasant drudgery, with nothing untoward happening, where the most exciting event is buying a plow. :smallwink:

Morty
2007-12-05, 04:54 PM
Stop thinking that people who do not think "balance" is a priority, a need, or even beneficial are morons. This is a bit like the WoW players that came on other games' forums to explain why they were stupid not playing WoW. I like playing an "unbalanced" and "unfair" D&D, and there are other people that do (well, most european players I know, actually). It can make for a pleasant experience, one close to something like a book that the players and the DM write together. So no, the need for balance is certainly not obvious, or universaly true.

Great. Now you should cease comparing players who are concerned about balance to WoW players.

Nowhere Girl
2007-12-05, 04:56 PM
Once again, we have the "balance is actively bad" idea... I had a long discussion about it on another thread. There is apparently a certain type of class imbalance that makes for a good game in a certain gaming style. I could never get straight exactly what the key element of this imbalance was, though, or why it would not be an adequate solution to take a balanced system and say "Wizards in my world cast as if 2 levels higher than they actually are"--it is, after all, far easier to take a balanced system and unbalance it than the reverse.

Can you explain? What is the element of imbalance that you feel makes for a good game? How does it make the game better?

Even more, I don't know what you can't just have characters be of different levels if you want imbalance. Give out flat exp rewards regardless of level, and there you go: you have a game wherein the characters will never be balanced against one another because Imaprota Ganist the Hero will always be more powerful than Justa Nextra the Sidekick. Class needn't even matter, so you can have an unbalanced game where the most powerful character is a wizard, where the most powerful character is a sword-swinging warrior ... or really just whatever tickles your fancy.

Edit: Assuming a base system that's balanced, of course. Which it should be. Of course.

streakster
2007-12-05, 04:57 PM
This will probably derail the thread, but for the most part Gandalf is a fighter with a glowy staff, especialy in the movies. In the books, he does all actualy discribed fighting with a sword, and never uses magic for more than setting a tree on fire (and I have heard that attributed to the elven ring he wears). In the movies, he even fights the Balor (which wasn't a battle fully discribed in the book) with a sword, not magic.

Gandalf is thus an example of how awesome high level fighters should be, not how high level wizards should be.

LOTR Reference, guaranteed to derail thread for at least three pages. Check.

Fiery Diamond
2007-12-05, 05:08 PM
Well, I have to say, I'm impressed that this thread remained civil the entire time. I've read all the pages of it, and only a very few times did anyone appear to fly off the handle.

It's too much effort to remember which posters said what over the course of the thread, so I'll just refer to "it was said earlier" when I need to. Except for Werewindlefr, who posted recently enough that I can scroll down to see his name.

I think there are a few problems with the concepts in this thread, which some posters have mentioned. First is what "balance" means. Different people have different ideas there. For example, is it
1) mechanical power equivalency
2) the ability to have the limelight for an equal length of time
3) accomplish things that other party members (or classes) cannot
4) contribute to the party the same amount (timewise or number of things they can do)
5) be able to contribute at some point in time
6) complement the other party members
7) be able to be played without being useless
8) have fun

Yes, I'm aware that no one has yet posited #8. However, I would say that that is the most important part of D&D. Other balance definitions that I think are valid concerns are numbers 5, 6, 7, and 3 as it relates to party member but not classes in general.

After all, D&D is a roleplaying game, not a tactical game. It may have tactical aspects, but that isn't the point of the game -- unless those playing it want it to be. Because, you see, what is important to D&D depends entirely on who's playing. Some people like games where all they do is dungeon crawl after dungeon crawl, while others prefer to never set foot in a dungeon as such, all combat being directly story-related. And there are players everywhere in between those extremes too.

I have to agree with Werewindlefr, if you play the game as a group story-creation, having one character be far more powerful than another doesn't cause any problems, and can even be a good thing -- look at fantasy novels; it isn't uncommon for, among the group of protagonists, one or two to completely outshine the others in fighting, spellcasting, social interactions, and everything else. But those stories can be entertaining, because plot and character development are more important than character effectiveness equality.

So, I dedicate this last statement to the OP: In response to your question - the necessity of balance is decided entirely based on the specific group of players and their wishes. It depends on the players. Amen.

- Fiery Diamond

Indon
2007-12-05, 05:14 PM
Why not have all melee characters look like Mihawk in One Piece, while all spellcasters look like the hapless wizard in that old Dungeons & Dragons cartoon? There's a fictional precedent for both, so fair game, right? Sure, it'd be unbalanced, but all of the people who play wizards won't mind if their only rule is "luggage carrier," right?


Ah, so you're familiar with the Tome of Battle and Tome of Magic classes?

Werewindlefr
2007-12-05, 05:17 PM
Great. Now you should cease comparing players who are concerned about balance to WoW players.
This was an analogy, not an identity. It doesn't mean that they have the same tastes or anything. Besides, I don't understand this forum widespread phenomenon which consists in thinking WoW players are morons, and that comparing someone with a WoW player is calling someone a moron.

But this isn't even what I said, and I'd like you to not change the meaning of what I write. I said that people treating imbalance advocates like morons were like a small (but annoying) portion of WoW players, the ones tha can't accept people liking other games - just like those who cannot accept that some people prefer a non-balanced game.

Morty
2007-12-05, 05:21 PM
This was an analogy, not an identity. It doesn't mean that they have the same tastes or anything. Besides, I don't understand this forum widespread phenomenon which consists in thinking WoW players are morons, and that comparing someone with a WoW player is calling someone a moron.

Comparing anyone to other people with no real basis is wrong, wheter this comparision is meant to be an insult or not.


But this isn't even what I said, and I'd like you to not change the meaning of what I write. I said that people treating imbalance advocates like morons were like a small (but annoying) portion of WoW players, the ones tha can't accept people liking other games - just like those who cannot accept that some people prefer a non-balanced game.

Oh, alright. But this work both ways, you know. Some people -it's not directed at you, I'm speaking in general- can't accept that there are people who want balanced game, often disregarding them as roll-players or powergamers.

illathid
2007-12-05, 05:41 PM
No, I think the problem is that there isn't a single way to play D&D, but several, and in several of them "fairness", "power" and "balance" are irrelevant (and actually counterproductive). D&D 3.x allowed for several gameplay styles, but they are actually prioritizing the heroquest-like tiled-dungeon over the others. I don't have anything against people who play it that way, and they sure should be thought about when designing D&D, but they shouln't be the only ones. (Actually, since it's part of the game that a computer can handle better than a DM, it should be less and less the focus of D&D.)

Stop thinking that people who do not think "balance" is a priority, a need, or even beneficial are morons. This is a bit like the WoW players that came on other games' forums to explain why they were stupid not playing WoW. I like playing an "unbalanced" and "unfair" D&D, and there are other people that do (well, most european players I know, actually). It can make for a pleasant experience, one close to something like a book that the players and the DM write together. So no, the need for balance is certainly not obvious, or universaly true.

I think everyone can accept the fact that there are several different ways to play D&D. It's one of the things I think makes the game great. However, it should be apparent that the priorities and desires of some play styles are mutually exclusive with the priorities of other play styles. Class balance seems to be one of these priorities, in that it is both loved and hated depending on what play style you prefer.

So how then can we decide which play style is the one that should be better supported by the system?

I would suggest the system should support the priority that would be harder to change with minimal effort.

This is why I feel that the system should be balanced. If I wanted a certain class to be unbalanced for whatever reason, I could simply give that class a bonus in XP, so that they would always be at a higher level. It is much harder to easily apply balance to classes, as can be seen by the numerous attempts by so many people to better balance D&D.

Nowhere Girl
2007-12-05, 05:41 PM
Ah, so you're familiar with the Tome of Battle and Tome of Magic classes?

I'm pretty sure that an optimized level 20 martial adept of any flavor still wouldn't measure up to the insanity that is Mihawk. Maybe he'd bother to use something other than a tiny knife to fight you, though.

Maybe.

Actually, Tome of Battle classes are excellent, fun and balanced (not able to compete evenly with wizards, of course, but then wizards aren't even remotely balanced) replacement classes for melee. I'm not sure about the Tome of Magic classes and magic, as I haven't really looked into them.

Werewindlefr
2007-12-05, 05:43 PM
Oh, alright. But this work both ways, you know. Some people -it's not directed at you, I'm speaking in general- can't accept that there are people who want balanced game, often disregarding them as roll-players or powergamers.
Which is equally wrong. Thing is, 3.x could be played both ways. WotC had understood that there wasn't just one way to play RPGs. 4th, with its "everyone has skills that rise at each level to balance the game" (for instance) will only work for those who want balance.



I would suggest the system should support the priority that would be harder to change with minimal effort.
Tweaking a few things is one thing, using rules that were designed with a totally opposite gaming philosophy is another. People like me don't just want lack of balance for the sake of it -that's a misconception- so just saying "wizards will cast spells with as if they were 2 CL higher doesn't actually make sense. What I want is for the character archetype to go first, and that necessarily means that the classes won't be balanced - it would be too much of a coincidence-

If you want, I don't just want any "lack of balance", I want the characters to feel like what they are in fantasy stories.

Nowhere Girl
2007-12-05, 05:45 PM
Which is equally wrong. Thing is, 3.x could be played both ways. WotC had understood that there wasn't just one way to play RPGs. 4th, with its "everyone has skills that rise at each level to balance the game" (for instance) will only work for those who want balance.

Or for those who actually think to have PCs be different levels if they want an unbalanced game, I suppose.

Poof! Unbalanced. Go nuts.

What was so hard about that?

Werewindlefr
2007-12-05, 05:50 PM
Or for those who actually think to have PCs be different levels if they want an unbalanced game, I suppose.

Poof! Unbalanced. Go nuts.

What was so hard about that? That it doesn't give the desired effect.


:smallfurious: Typos :smallfurious:

Indon
2007-12-05, 05:50 PM
Which is equally wrong. Thing is, 3.x could be played both ways. WotC had understood that there wasn't just one way to play RPGs. 4th, with its "everyone has skills that rise at each level to balance the game" (for instance) will only work for those who want balance.


We don't know if that's how it's going to work out.

Personally, if the game's balanced, unless every class is capable of functioning as an entire party when optimized I'm going to be mourning the loss of significant mechanical diversity from a number of classes.

And as for people who want a balanced 3.x game, *poof* restrict classes. Game balanced. Go nuts.

Nowhere Girl
2007-12-05, 05:52 PM
That it doesn't not give the desired effect.

I can't tell whether you're being cute (double negative, saying "it doesn't not" and therefore does give the desired effect) or just obstinate with a typo (meaning to say "it does not," yet without any supporting reasons).

Morty
2007-12-05, 05:54 PM
Which is equally wrong. Thing is, 3.x could be played both ways. WotC had understood that there wasn't just one way to play RPGs. 4th, with its "everyone has skills that rise at each level to balance the game" (for instance) will only work for those who want balance.

And 3.x doesn't work for those who want balance, while being clearly designed to be balanced. How is that in any way better?


If you want, I don't just want any "lack of balance", I want the characters to feel like what they are in fantasy stories.

Then why are you playing D&D? D&D is gaming system, not universal tool to represent fantasy stories. Not that it matters, as there's no connotation between lack of balance and fantasy stories.


And as for people who want a balanced 3.x game, *poof* restrict classes. Game balanced. Go nuts.

As it's been repeaded 666 times, unbalancing existing system is a lot easier than balancing an unbalanced one.

Nowhere Girl
2007-12-05, 05:58 PM
And as for people who want a balanced 3.x game, *poof* restrict classes. Game balanced. Go nuts.

Which is easier: starting and keeping PCs at different levels or poring over all of the bajillion classes PCs might like and trying to figure out which ones are balanced and which aren't (only to find out halfway through that X class unexpectedly is unbalanced after all)?

Hell, I could just build a game system from the ground up, make it balanced, and work with that, too. And go nuts! So the hell what? That doesn't make it nearly as easy as having a preexisting balanced base system that I can, if I desire, tweak to be unbalanced as I like in an effortless instant merely by adjusting the relative experience of the PCs.

Werewindlefr
2007-12-05, 05:59 PM
Personally, if the game's balanced, unless every class is capable of functioning as an entire party when optimized I'm going to be mourning the loss of significant mechanical diversity from a number of classes.

Exactly.
Actually, the game is "rather" balanced, if you take into account all the stuff that can be done in D&D. The Beguiler class is absolutely useless in combat, but awesome in social situations. Balancing would mean giving the Beguiler combat abilities and the fighter social abilities. That makes no sense.

If balancing means only making all characters worth something in dungeon, or action, or combat (you can't even balance the classes for all 3 at the same time without killing diversity) then you break balance for the one who likes to also play social situation: the Beguiler will be good in dungeons AND in social situations, while the fighter will be good only in dungeons.

Both approach can coexist, but it takes effort from WotC's part. That's what they're payed for.



hen why are you playing D&D? D&D is gaming system, not universal tool to represent fantasy stories. Not that it matters, as there's no connotation between lack of balance and fantasy stories.
Because it's the only one with enough material for my needs. Also, I do not play vanilla D&D but Arcana Evolved. Also, there is such a connotation - some fantasy archetypes are just bad at action situations, but can negotiate something from the evil overlord without him even realising he's been scammed in his whole life.

Morty
2007-12-05, 06:01 PM
Exactly.
Actually, the game is "rather" balanced, if you take into account all the stuff that can be done in D&D. The Beguiler class is absolutely useless in combat, but awesome in social situations. Balancing would mean giving the Beguiler combat abilities and the fighter social abilities. That makes no sense.


You know it's plainly not true, right? Beguilers are very useful in combat. Unless you're thinking of some other Beguilers than those in PHB II.

Rachel Lorelei
2007-12-05, 06:06 PM
Exactly.
Actually, the game is "rather" balanced, if you take into account all the stuff that can be done in D&D. The Beguiler class is absolutely useless in combat,
I'm sorry, but... can I have some of your drugs? The Beguiler is awesome in combat. It casts spells! Powerful spells! Save-or-suck/lose spells! And it's not "absolutely useless" even against undead and constructs (Illusions are *great* against mindless creatures, Solid Fog and Glitterdust work on constructs and undead just fine, they pick up Shadow Conjuration/Evocation, they have UMD plus scrolls/wands/staffs), much less against normal enemies. They're not wizards, but they sure as hell contribute at *least* their fair share, and often a lot more than!
They are also the absolute kings of social situations.


Balancing would mean giving the Beguiler combat abilities and the fighter social abilities. That makes no sense.
No, it wouldn't. Not every class has to be good at the same thing.
Balancing would mean that if the Fighter can't do anything besides fight, he'd be better at it than everyone who *can* do other things.


If balancing means only making all characters worth something in dungeon, or action, or combat (you can't even balance the classes for all 3 at the same time without killing diversity) then you break balance for the one who likes to also play social situation: the Beguiler will be good in dungeons AND in social situations, while the fighter will be good only in dungeons.

Both approach can coexist, but it takes effort from WotC's part. That's what they're payed for.
Balance doesn't mean equally good at EVERYTHING. It just means "contribute about the same amount". Obviously type of game will skew that; if it's a social-intrigue game, the Fighter's going to be cooling his heels, whereas if it's The Trapless Dungeon Of Un-Sneak-Attackable Monsters With No One To Talk To, the rogue is.

The Beguiler already IS good both in dungeons and in social situations while the Fighter isn't. This is a problem with the Fighter's design. You can bet that 4E fighters won't be useless in social situations.

Nowhere Girl
2007-12-05, 06:06 PM
Exactly.
Actually, the game is "rather" balanced, if you take into account all the stuff that can be done in D&D. The Beguiler class is absolutely useless in combat, but awesome in social situations. Balancing would mean giving the Beguiler combat abilities and the fighter social abilities. That makes no sense.

Strawman. Balance doesn't have to mean that at all; it can just as easily mean making all classes equally useful overall. Putting aside the fact that beguilers actually aren't useless in combat, what balance means is that you don't have a class called fighter that can basically only fight and then another class called cleric that can not only fight (a great deal better than the fighter) but can also heal, resurrect, gather information via divinations, and hell, just to add insult to injury, find traps just like a rogue.

Indon
2007-12-05, 06:09 PM
As it's been repeaded 666 times, unbalancing existing system is a lot easier than balancing an unbalanced one.

Both are pretty easy. No, it's not a matter of reading through every single book that was ever written, it's a matter of noting, "Hey, Bob, you know how you want to take this Polymorph spell? Well, I own the Monster Manual, and I'm thinking that's a bit too powerful for this game. So pick something else." Off-the-cuff balance is pretty easy, especially for someone experienced enough at D&D to ever come to an online forum for it in order to know that it was unbalanced in the first place.

Similarly, differing levels do not cover diversity of gameplay. A single 'balanced' system can not, for instance, both display a world in which magic is so easy that flight is commonplace, and a conan-esque world in which regardless of how powerful players are, magic never allows such as flight... not without heavy houseruling to make system balancing look, again, easy.

Though, as was discussed 666 times, it's been brought up that a system can indeed have the best of both worlds, and pretty easily; that's my hope for the next edition of D&D.

Werewindlefr
2007-12-05, 06:11 PM
Balance doesn't mean equally good at EVERYTHING. It just means "contribute about the same amount". Obviously type of game will skew that; if it's a social-intrigue game, the Fighter's going to be cooling his heels, whereas if it's The Trapless Dungeon Of Un-Sneak-Attackable Monsters With No One To Talk To, the rogue is.
Okay. But then, depending on the campaign, you're going to have very few social situations, or very little action, etc... so it's impossible to balance for all gameplay styles. If they give classes like the bard better social ability and weaker dungeon abilities to make it overall as good as the fighter, then it's okay -except that people who prefer action-heavy campaigns will not be very happy with it. There isn't an absolute definition of balance, it all depends on how people play. So, what kind of balance should there be?

Nowhere Girl
2007-12-05, 06:16 PM
Okay. But then, depending on the campaign, you're going to have very few social situations, or very little action, etc... so it's impossible to balance for all gameplay styles. If they give classes like the bard better social ability and weaker dungeon abilities to make it overall as good as the fighter, then it's okay -except that people who prefer action-heavy campaigns will not be very happy with it. There isn't an absolute definition of balance, it all depends on how people play. So, what kind of balance should there be?

Even doing what you said would be a start, since currently, an optimized bard is infinitely more powerful in a dungeon than an optimized fighter, as well as being even more more powerful outside of a dungeon.

Part of the problem is your lack of imagination on this. Who says social skills can't be used in a dungeon? They can, in fact, be used on any intelligent creature that can understand you. Heck, my warblade in a game I'm playing right now ended an encounter with a group of kobolds with a single Intimidate check, no combat required. And she's not even a social specialist!

As well, who says combat (or potential combat) only takes place in dungeons? Who says every game even features a dungeon, specifically, at all?

Rachel Lorelei
2007-12-05, 06:19 PM
Both are pretty easy. No, it's not a matter of reading through every single book that was ever written, it's a matter of noting, "Hey, Bob, you know how you want to take this Polymorph spell? Well, I own the Monster Manual, and I'm thinking that's a bit too powerful for this game. So pick something else." Off-the-cuff balance is pretty easy, especially for someone experienced enough at D&D to ever come to an online forum for it in order to know that it was unbalanced in the first place.
Wow, you're so amazingly wrong. No, off-the-cuff balance is NOT easy. In extreme cases ("uh, yeah, you're NOT going up to -1 HP from -1000 by starting to drown") it is, but most of the time, improvised house rules suck. And how do you off-the-cuff wizards? Just ban all of their good spells as they come up?
"Okay, I cast Glitterdust, they all make Will saves or they're blind." "Huh? Wow, that's really good. Actually, that's a level 3 spell now." "What?!" "Sure. Go ahead and cast somethng else that you would've prepared instead." "Fine, I cast Mirror Image" "Okay... but, oh yeah, that only gives you two images now." "What the hell?!"

I wouldn't want to play in that game.

You can't just handwave away the difference between, say, a druid and a monk. You can try to implement quick fixes, but quick fixes invariably suck.


Similarly, differing levels do not cover diversity of gameplay. A single 'balanced' system can not, for instance, both display a world in which magic is so easy that flight is commonplace, and a conan-esque world in which regardless of how powerful players are, magic never allows such as flight... not without heavy houseruling to make system balancing look, again, easy.

First of all, sure you can. "Oh, and nobody can have more than one spellcaster level for every four levels. And no Fly spells, at all, or this, or that."
Second of all, what the heck does that have to do with BALANCE? An unbalanced systems where some classes rule and some classes suck has this issue to an equal degree. That's a matter of what you want magic to be able to do in the system, not of how balanced it is with everything else.

Rachel Lorelei
2007-12-05, 06:23 PM
Okay. But then, depending on the campaign, you're going to have very few social situations, or very little action, etc... so it's impossible to balance for all gameplay styles. If they give classes like the bard better social ability and weaker dungeon abilities to make it overall as good as the fighter, then it's okay -except that people who prefer action-heavy campaigns will not be very happy with it. There isn't an absolute definition of balance, it all depends on how people play. So, what kind of balance should there be?

Um... people who prefer action-heavy campaigns won't be playing bards.

If the DM is running a social game, he can say "okay, make social characters." People who prefer action-heavy campaigns are going to be disappointed whether they're playing a Fighter or not playing at all.

What does that have to do with balance?

Werewindlefr
2007-12-05, 06:25 PM
As well, who says combat (or potential combat) only takes place in dungeons? Who says every game even features a dungeon, specifically, at all?
Actually, no one -I use it as a stereotype of "action-oriented game", although I would be the first to usually make the distinction.

Anyway, if that's the kind of balance you're talking about (although balancing things that have nothing in common is impossible since it's pretty much relative to the eye of the beholder :p) then I'm okay with it. But is it what they're going with? Are they going to create classes which are less useful in action-based situations and better at other things? If that's what they do, I'm less opposed to it, for sure.

Hyfigh
2007-12-05, 06:27 PM
My view on the balance issue has nothing to do with 'what one character can do, all can'. My view of the balance is making things fun for everyone. Chances are that the batman wizard in the group can perform the rogues job better than the rogue, and outdamage him without having to flank or sneak up on his opponent, not to mention he can sneak up on his opponent more easily. The wizard can also perform fighting and tanking (meatshield and battlefield controller) duties better than the fighter. Maybe he doesn't do it, but one of his spells that he cast sure as hell did.

When one class is out-classed in it's specific area of focus, it's just not fun anymore. When the fighter and monk are two of the worst martial classes in the game, you have a problem. They no longer become useful because why play a fighter who can only fight when I could instead play a cleric and not only fight better but still have tons of other cool options?

I have no problems with magic being superior, but they need to balance that out in some way to make other routes viable.

Rachel Lorelei
2007-12-05, 06:31 PM
Since combat is such a big part of D&D, every character will be able to contribute handily in a fight (as was supposed to be the case in 3.5). Characters with an advantage in other circumstances won't be as good in combat, as was supposed to be the case in 3.5 (Rogues vs. Barbarians in melee).

I suspect that in 4E, every character will have something to do out of combat (Notice, Streetwise, etc for the Fighter types) and in. Ones with a significant advantage out of combat will have slightly less skill in combat (because Combat is such a big part of D&D).

Werewindlefr
2007-12-05, 06:32 PM
I have no problems with magic being superior, but they need to balance that out in some way to make other routes viable.Well, with the examples you make, I would say they need to define the class "can and can't" more precisely. The classes are walking on each other's toes a bit too much, that's absolutely true. That's not so much a balance problem as a "role" problem (as in, character roles)

Bosh
2007-12-05, 07:12 PM
D&D, at it's heart, is a roleplaying game; people who don't play it as a tactical/strategic battle game aren't playing the game incorrectly, and I find it fairly insulting that you continue to insinuate that this is the case.
Right but it is a role playing game with a strong tactical combat focus. If you don't want that focus there are MUCH better games out there than D&D.

For example if you wanted to play a Romance RPG with D&D rules you COULD do it, you have social skills, you have charisma, there's nothing to stop you, but it wouldn't be playing to D&D's strengths. The same goes for what you're talking about, it sounds like you'd be better off with Ars Magica or something.



you can have a team with power disparities.
you can have situations that require you to depend on your teammates with power disparities.

Right you CAN have that, but what point does it serve? All it does is make teamwork that much less necessary by endangering niche protection. Niche protection (each class having one thing that they're better at than every one else so that the team needs them) is an essential element of D&D, too much imbalance (druids who fight better than fighters, etc.) and that gets ruined.


But D&D's niche happens to be a high magic world, and in a high magic world...IMO, the fact that D&D does that niche as well as it does is the only reason to play D&D over other RPGs.
Right, D&D's niche is high magic which is why I don't use it for low magic games. D&D niche is also teamwork being central, which is why I don't use it for games with large power disparities.



But you're seeing things only in term of power. This isn't a strategy game, this isn't diablo: some people want to play a fighter to be like Conan, or to be like Aragorn. Some people play fighters because they find the idea cool. In roleplaying games, some people (and I think those people are the only ones who will have a reason to play RPGs over video games) don't like to think in terms of power first.

For those people, balance suck. BIG time.

For a cool idea to work out the mechanics should match the idea. The more the mechanics deviates from a character concept the more trouble that causes. The D&D fighter class does a pretty horrifically bad job of mechanically modelling what Conan is all about...


Combine all of this with spring attack, mobility, and dodge and you have yourself a combat role: hit and run.
Yes but they can't hit very hard (spring attack equals no flurry of blows) so while they're hitting and running the party has to do the actual combat. Good mobility and defense don't count for much if you can't do much to affect the way that the battle goes.


If you want, I don't just want any "lack of balance", I want the characters to feel like what they are in fantasy stories.
I would recommend finding a game that's better at doing that than D&D. I have.


Because it's the only one with enough material for my needs.
There's plenty of games with big stacks of supplements...


(although balancing things that have nothing in common is impossible since it's pretty much relative to the eye of the beholder :p)
Well making things perfectly balanced is obviously impossible but you can make things balanced enough by having niche protection. As long as fighters are the best class for melee combat and rogues are the best class for stealth and dealing with traps, you don't need to worry to much about balance. But the second that druids get better at melee combat than fighters or when casters can out rogue a rogue then you have a problem.

Egill
2007-12-05, 10:19 PM
Honestly, I agree with many of the OP's tongue-in-cheek observations.

I have complained about class balance/power, and I have power-gamed, etc so I understand.

But, ultimately, you cannot win at anything without someone losing, and when you are playing D&D with a group of your friends, nobody should be losing.

Jayabalard
2007-12-05, 10:47 PM
As it's been repeaded 666 times, unbalancing existing system is a lot easier than balancing an unbalanced one.Repeatedly stating something as if it were a fact does not make it so.

it's just as easy to make an unbalanced game into a balanced one... simply remove all classes except one, dictate that everyone has the same starting skills, feats, attributes, etc.

That doesn't make it a good balanced game, any more than taking a balanced system and randomly unbalancing it makes for a good unbalanced game.


D&D niche is also teamwork being central, which is why I don't use it for games with large power disparities.I fail to see your point. Whether the system has large power disparities, or is balanced has no effect on "teamwork being central".

If you want a balanced game, I would recommend finding a game that's better at doing that than D&D. I have.

EvilElitest
2007-12-05, 11:06 PM
This is something that has bothered me for a long time as I read the boards.

Why do we expect classes to be balanced?

I mean, seriously, think about it.

Should a fighter be on the same level as a wizard? No; because one swings a sword, the other changes the laws of physics.

Should a monk be on the same level as a cleric? No; because while one takes the human(oid) body to it's limits, the other has an all-powerful diety on his/her side.

I see a lot of complaints about how powerful the batman-wizard or Cleric/Druid-zilla is, and my first thought is "well...yeah, they use magic. It's powerful stuff."

In one of the recent threads about Tome of Battle, there was a comment that ToB helped bring melee characters to the level of spellcasters again. This is not a good thing. No matter how well you can swing a sword, you shouldn't be able to beat someone who can stop time, make things spontaniously combust, summon demons to his/her aid, and utter words so powerful that things die just by hearing it.

I've got some theories about why people rant about balance (which I'll put in the spoiler below), but on a fundamental level, why do you think we expect the classes to be balanced?

Some of my theories for people wanting balance are:
- They are trying to "beat" d&d as if it were a video game
- They are trying to impress other people with how awesome their make-believe character is
- They really enjoy throwing lots of dice
- They can’t stand losing the spotlight
- They don't want to accept that the unfairness of real-life carries over into make-believe life.
- They are trying to rectify cool character concepts with competitiveness to be better than those around them.
Note: Most of these are very tongue-in-cheek. Except for the last one, that’s one I really do believe is the case 92% of the time


I like playing fighters. Why the hell would i want to play one when i am totally useless to a group
from,
EE

Jayabalard
2007-12-05, 11:23 PM
I like playing fighters. Why the hell would i want to play one when i am totally useless to a group
from,
EEIf all you want is to be useful, balance isn't necessary in the slightest.

Just because someone is stronger, more powerful, better than you doesn't make you useless.

Bosh
2007-12-05, 11:28 PM
Repeatedly stating something as if it were a fact does not make it so.

it's just as easy to make an unbalanced game into a balanced one... simply remove all classes except one, dictate that everyone has the same starting skills, feats, attributes, etc.

That doesn't make it a good balanced game, any more than taking a balanced system and randomly unbalancing it makes for a good unbalanced game.

I fail to see your point. Whether the system has large power disparities, or is balanced has no effect on teamwork being central.

If you want a balanced game, I would recommend finding a game that's better at doing that than D&D. I have.




OK, D&D teamwork is based on teamwork and niche protection. What niche protection is is the idea that each class has a specific job that they're the best at. The entire POINT of having a class based system is to preserve those niches. Each of the four basic class archetypes has a role (although things have gotten a bit muddier since the old editions):

1. Fighters do close range combat and meat shield duty (heavy infantry)
2. Clerics provide support and healing (support staff)
3. Thieves scout and help the party get around environmental obstacles like cliffs and traps (scouts/light cavalry)
4. Magic users provide long range and area affect damage primarily, but more battle field control in the more recent editions (artillery basically)

D&D parties are supposed to work like good combined arm armies in wargames, each class with a role to play that other classes can't do so that everyone relies on each other.

Now if you have this system and you make cleric healing a bit less or a bit more powerful or thieves a bit more or a bit less sneaky etc. it doesn't really matter. Those kind of power disparities aren't very important since each class still has its niche that its best in.

Problems crop up when niche protection breaks down and one class becomes able to do another class's niche as well as the original class and do other stuff as well.

So clerics being able to speak to the dead, resurrect people, heal wounds with a touch, yadda yadda yadda is powerful but not a real problem. Them being able to melee as well as a fighter WHILE being able to do all of that is a problem.

Magic users being able to teleport, make magic items, twist the laws of physics or whatever is powerful but not a real problem. Them being able to scout and deal with environmental obstacles like traps better than thieves WHILE being able to teleport and lob fire balls as well is a real problem.

If you ruin niche protection then you ruin one of the main things that D&D is all about since without niche protection what makes D&D teamwork so fun and effective breaks down.

Now if I want to play a game with a low magic world, if I want a character that doesn't fit well into D&D archetypes, etc. etc. then that's not D&D's fault, that just means that I have to find another game for that campaign. But if D&D can't deliver at what is supposed to be one of its core functions then that is a serious problem. Hopefully 4ed fixes this problem, if it doesn't I'll probably go back to Rules Cyclopedia D&D for D&D-style campaigns since I don't have the energy to fix what's broken in 3ed and 1st and 2nd ed give me headaches.

Jayabalard
2007-12-05, 11:52 PM
If you ruin niche protection then you ruin one of the main things that D&D is all about since without niche protection what makes D&D teamwork so fun and effective breaks down.I completely disagree with your premise; I don't agree that niche protection has anything at all to do with what makes D&D teamwork fun. Sure, it's important for MMO's but not for PNP gaming; since you're not competing with people for group/raid slots, it doesn't matter if a class can fill one role, or four roles; the GM just has to structure the game around the capabilities of the group, which is true even in a balanced system.

I don't see any reason for niche protection other than to facilitate chest pounding.

Bosh
2007-12-06, 12:17 AM
I completely disagree with your premise; I don't agree that niche protection has anything at all to do with what makes D&D teamwork fun. Sure, it's important for MMO's but not for PNP gaming; since you're not competing with people for group/raid slots, it doesn't matter if a class can fill one role, or four roles; the GM just has to structure the game around the capabilities of the group, which is true even in a balanced system.

I don't see any reason for niche protection other than to facilitate chest pounding.

If not niche protection, what's the point of even having a class based system? Faster character creation?

horseboy
2007-12-06, 12:23 AM
I don't see any reason for niche protection other than to facilitate chest pounding.

To a certain degree I'm going to agree with this. Where I disagree actually is when a class that's supposed to do something can't do it. Like fighters. They're supposed to kill things with a weapon. The problem is that weapons aren't as dangerous as magic, therefore the fighter can't do his job without becoming a one trick pony that only works under certain circumstances. And of course, the other problem of D&D's lack of flexibility keeps the fighter pigeon holed into something he doesn't do well instead of being able to branch out into something else. Thereby making the fighter superfluous for much more than your buddy that just hangs out with you.

Serenity
2007-12-06, 12:30 AM
Balance counterproductive? How? In what possible scenario would it be a bad thing that two characters can contribute roughly equally to the team's effort? In what possible scenario is it a good and enjoyable thing that there is nothing one character can contribute to the team's efforts that another character cannot do better?

Look, I like roleplay. Love roleplay. I've never played a dungeon crawl, and most games I've played have had one or two combat encounters a session. And for all that, I have never felt that my gaming experience would be enhanced by unbalance, and I don't see how better balance could possibly hurt me. Everyone talks about the 'desired effect' of imbalance and why injecting power disparities into a balanced system won't provide the same effect. Neither has been explained to me in a way that even approaches adequacy.

The closest idea I have to what you might be talking about would be the Buffy RPG. A Hero gets a bigger starting point buy; any skill they share with a White Hat, the Hero likely does better. But no one can do everything, and White Hats can contribute significantly in various areas outside other party member's expertise. Plus, they have something that they inherently do better than Heroes--they get twice the Drama Points for manipulating the plot in their favor, and get those points back more easily. Given a bit of time, they can grow into powerful heroes in their own right. At no time does anyone totally outclass anyone else. This is a good system. If that's your idea of imbalance, I can see your point.

It's also not what happens in D&D. At all. In D&D, CoDzilla easily outperforms the Fighter at his one and only role, and even the squishier wizard doesn't really need a meat shield. Even if he does, how does the fighter act as one at a level where the party is going up against dragons, balors, and other highly mobile monsters? What incentive do the monsters have to not just go around the fighter and hit the real heavy guns? Just what can a fighter contribute to a high-level party? And how is rectifying such a problem even slightly dangerous to roleplaying?

Morty
2007-12-06, 03:36 AM
Repeatedly stating something as if it were a fact does not make it so.

Of course. It's true to start with, I don't have to make it so.


it's just as easy to make an unbalanced game into a balanced one... simply remove all classes except one, dictate that everyone has the same starting skills, feats, attributes, etc.


No. This way you get a game where everyone plays the same character, not a balanced game. Of course, for you it's apparently all the same, so I don't know why I even bother.


If all you want is to be useful, balance isn't necessary in the slightest.

If someone is doing much more than you in an area where you're supposed to be the best, just by the virtue of the class s/he chose, you are useless. Like when you're playing a fighter but druid fights better than you while also being secondary spellcaster. Or when wizard offs everything much more easily than you. To use your argument: just because you -and only you- repeat something dozens of times doesn't make it true.

Armads
2007-12-06, 03:46 AM
If someone is doing much more than you just by the virtue of the class s/he chose, you are useless.

Not really. For example, if you're playing a 100-hp Shock Trooper-Dungeoncrasher Fighter of Cheesy Goodness, and there's a 60-hp combat-focused rogue with maxed ranks of Disable Device and Search. You do much more than him in combat, but he's not useless, since he can also mess around with traps.

Morty
2007-12-06, 04:30 AM
Not really. For example, if you're playing a 100-hp Shock Trooper-Dungeoncrasher Fighter of Cheesy Goodness, and there's a 60-hp combat-focused rogue with maxed ranks of Disable Device and Search. You do much more than him in combat, but he's not useless, since he can also mess around with traps.

That's not the same. Here the fighter is doing more in combat, but that's normal, as he's an optimized fighter. Unoptimized rogue won't do as much in battle but he still can do out of combat stuff fighter can't, so that's fair. However, in D&D we have situations where fighter is outclassed in what he's supposed to do best just because of his class. I'll clarify that in my post, to avoid nitpicks.

Skjaldbakka
2007-12-06, 04:43 AM
Of course. It's true to start with, I don't have to make it so.

There is really no point in trying to argue with Jayabalard. His claims are not falsifiable.

Jayabalard
2007-12-06, 08:38 AM
If someone is doing much more than you in an area where you're supposed to be the best, just by the virtue of the class s/he chose, you are useless.Nope, they're just more useful than you are. Less useful is not the same thing as useless. Describing this condition as "useless" is just exaggerating for effect; it's not bad as rhetoric goes, but it's not a valid claim.

If you have two fighters in the group; the first one is far more powerful than the second; the second one isn't useless simply because there's someone in the group that can do everything he can better. Less useful, to be sure; he can contribute less in every possible situation.

We're not talking about an MMO where a fighter is going to be competing for a cleric for the tank spot in the group, so there's nothing with being less useful than some other class.

Graxis
2007-12-06, 08:59 AM
I'm sorry most of the posters in this thread seem to have bad DMs and make seemingly poor choices.

Fighters aren't that bad. You just need a DM that can create encounters that let everyone's abilities shine through (although not necessarily all at once).

I currently am playing a Wizard 5/Incantatar 10 (my first spellcaster ever), and up to now have not had any more shining moments than the gish has. More than anything, I just make it easy for him to kill stuff, and also make sure that whatever is trying to kill him has a much harder time.

Our DM flavors the encounters to highlight a variety of our collective abilities. Problem solved IMO.

Kioran
2007-12-06, 09:06 AM
Nope, they're just more useful than you are. Less useful is not the same thing as useless. Describing this condition as "useless" is just exaggerating for effect; it's not bad as rhetoric goes, but it's not a valid claim.

If you have two fighters in the group; the first one is far more powerful than the second; the second one isn't useless simply because there's someone in the group that can do everything he can better. Less useful, to be sure; he can contribute less in every possible situation.

We're not talking about an MMO where a fighter is going to be competing for a cleric for the tank spot in the group, so there's nothing with being less useful than some other class.

Power is relative, as is money. You are less rich if many people around you have more money - simply because you cannot outbid them in a pinch. Simply put, if someone can simply one-up you in your chosen calling, you might not be useless - but might as well be in some situations.
You are assuming mature players with experience of the system. What if someone picked up the PHB, cracked it open and decided to build "Yerren, Archer from the north" an athletic guy who fights monsters with a bow as his profession and specialization....
Only to be constantly outdone by Archer Clerics and mobile wizards? The game at least implies an inherent balance, with lvls, CR and EXP.

If it flat-out told you that "The Fighter is the less talented and fortunate ally of the Wizard that strives to overcome his inferiority through rigorous weapon drill, managing to be at least helpful to his wondrous allies" (<-- seems to be the thing you´re prasing)...

It might be okay. But if you crack open the book and some options realy suck, to the point of not being equal to almost all monsters with a CR of their ECL-4, not to mention other PCs, people get punished for preference or playstyle and run into the knife. That´s not fair, and can, if the disparity is large enough kill games......

Kaelik
2007-12-06, 09:11 AM
I currently am playing a Wizard 5/Incantatar 10 (my first spellcaster ever), and up to now have not had any more shining moments than the gish has. More than anything, I just make it easy for him to kill stuff, and also make sure that whatever is trying to kill him has a much harder time.

1) What book is the Incantatar in. As far as I know, no such class exists.
2) A newbie Caster playing his first one isn't a good example.
3) Easy for him to kill stuff? Like it is already disabled by status effect even though it would kill him if it wasn't?
4) A gish is not a fighter. A gish usually has almost full casting. Not a good comparison when people are talking about magic beating non-magic.

Dausuul
2007-12-06, 09:21 AM
If you have two fighters in the group; the first one is far more powerful than the second; the second one isn't useless simply because there's someone in the group that can do everything he can better. Less useful, to be sure; he can contribute less in every possible situation.

True... although there does come a point in the high levels where characters actually can become useless or worse, where the casters could deal with everything more safely and efficiently if they didn't have to worry about keeping the fighter alive. But that's an extreme case.


I'm sorry most of the posters in this thread seem to have bad DMs and make seemingly poor choices.

Fighters aren't that bad. You just need a DM that can create encounters that let everyone's abilities shine through (although not necessarily all at once).

I currently am playing a Wizard 5/Incantatar 10 (my first spellcaster ever), and up to now have not had any more shining moments than the gish has. More than anything, I just make it easy for him to kill stuff, and also make sure that whatever is trying to kill him has a much harder time.

Our DM flavors the encounters to highlight a variety of our collective abilities. Problem solved IMO.

Ah, the Straw DM. Always a handy figure.

If this is your first time playing a caster, I don't think it's entirely a fair comparison. And fighters are that bad; a skilled DM can indeed manipulate encounters to make the fighter useful, but the fact that so much manipulation is required merely proves the point. Not all DMs are that skilled, and of those who are, many would prefer not to have to put so much effort into finding stuff for a high-level fighter to do.

Indon
2007-12-06, 09:27 AM
Wow, you're so amazingly wrong. No, off-the-cuff balance is NOT easy. In extreme cases ("uh, yeah, you're NOT going up to -1 HP from -1000 by starting to drown") it is, but most of the time, improvised house rules suck. And how do you off-the-cuff wizards? Just ban all of their good spells as they come up?
"Okay, I cast Glitterdust, they all make Will saves or they're blind." "Huh? Wow, that's really good. Actually, that's a level 3 spell now." "What?!" "Sure. Go ahead and cast somethng else that you would've prepared instead." "Fine, I cast Mirror Image" "Okay... but, oh yeah, that only gives you two images now." "What the hell?!"

I wouldn't want to play in that game.


Easier way: "No, you can't play a Wizard. You can play a different arcane class instead if you like."

This is, after all, from the camp which has no problem replacing the Fighter, Paladin, and Monk with the Warblade, Crusader, and Swordsage, now isn't it?



You can't just handwave away the difference between, say, a druid and a monk. You can try to implement quick fixes, but quick fixes invariably suck.


No Natural Spell, PHB2 Shapeshifting variant, Monk replaced with Swordsage. Done.



First of all, sure you can. "Oh, and nobody can have more than one spellcaster level for every four levels. And no Fly spells, at all, or this, or that."

Oh, so all I have to do is rewrite the magic system. Yeah, that's easy.



Second of all, what the heck does that have to do with BALANCE?


We're talking about the downside of having it; namely, the restriction to diversity. A balanced system is simply narratively weaker, because it is balanced.


An unbalanced systems where some classes rule and some classes suck has this issue to an equal degree. That's a matter of what you want magic to be able to do in the system, not of how balanced it is with everything else.

And it's narratively weaker because you can only have one existing magic (Or any) system in your 'balanced' system (which restricts what you can have magic, or any other subsystem, do in the system). The Vancian caster can not exist alongside the Binder or Truenamer. The Vancian swordsman can not exist alongside the Fighter or Paladin. The Warhulk and Hulking Hurler can not exist alongside the Exotic Weapon Master.

Edit: Bear in mind that this downside can be circumvented; simply by introducing a variety of options which are not intended to be balanced with each other, but can be balanced with other, similar options. For instance, you could have a caster class designed for Forgotten Realms or another high-power environment, and it could be much more powerful than a caster class designed for Ravenloft or another lower-power environment; but since they are specified for their environments, it becomes easy to choose either way.

Graxis
2007-12-06, 09:28 AM
1) What book is the Incantatar in. As far as I know, no such class exists.
2) A newbie Caster playing his first one isn't a good example.
3) Easy for him to kill stuff? Like it is already disabled by status effect even though it would kill him if it wasn't?
4) A gish is not a fighter. A gish usually has almost full casting. Not a good comparison when people are talking about magic beating non-magic.

1) "Most incantatrixes are female; the rare males who take up this class are known as incantatars." That's from the Player's Guide to Faerun, bub. Page 61.

2) I've played D&D for over 12 years. I've seen everything a Wizard has to offer, played far better than 12 more years of playing Wizards could ever teach me. Boo on you, sir, for just throwing out the newb comments.

3) Debuffing. Slow it down, keep multiple enemies from reaching him (he is the up-front tank of the party). Make sure we only need to fight one at a time and can focus fire them down. Would it kill him if not debuffed? Well, a lot of these things would anyone if not ratcheted down a few notches first. The party is quite over a normal CR-appropriate challenge.

4)You're right. To be specific, the gish class is a Duskblade. As played, however (due to some alignment changes), he plays as a fighter would. There are a few similarities. But no, the comparison isn't completely valid.

AstralFire
2007-12-06, 09:35 AM
I am still puzzling over what a 'good unbalanced system' is. If combat strength isn't the venue of a game, then the game isn't imbalanced; it's just like how no one claims a wizard is underpowered because he can't have nearly as high a Perform or Tumble as the Bard to make money weekly... Those skills are niche features.

Graxis
2007-12-06, 09:41 AM
True... although there does come a point in the high levels where characters actually can become useless or worse, where the casters could deal with everything more safely and efficiently if they didn't have to worry about keeping the fighter alive. But that's an extreme case.



Ah, the Straw DM. Always a handy figure.

If this is your first time playing a caster, I don't think it's entirely a fair comparison. And fighters are that bad; a skilled DM can indeed manipulate encounters to make the fighter useful, but the fact that so much manipulation is required merely proves the point. Not all DMs are that skilled, and of those who are, many would prefer not to have to put so much effort into finding stuff for a high-level fighter to do.

Isn't that exactly the DMs job? You know your parties strengths/weaknesses, and create fun encounters for everybody.

Technically, yes fighters are bad off. But you can make encounters to lessen that.

DMing is work. As someone new to DMing, I try and put a lot of thought into my encounters and story arcs. I include everyone, and it takes about 4-6 hrs of prep time per session. My DM probably spends more than that on our current campaign. But that is the price you pay for taking up the job.

Edit: I've been really lucky to have played with top-notch DMs throughout my 2e days and (fairly) recent foray into 3e. I guess I'll know exactly what you're all talking about here in a few more levels.

Dausuul
2007-12-06, 10:02 AM
Isn't that exactly the DMs job? You know your parties strengths/weaknesses, and create fun encounters for everybody.

Sure. But the system should help the DM do that rather than making it harder.

If my job is to build a house, and the system I'm working in provides me with nothing but crude hand tools and some warped lumber, I can probably still build a livable house if I'm a good enough carpenter and put enough work into it. That doesn't mean the system is good. In fact, if the system requires a brilliant carpenter and a huge amount of labor to produce a functional house, it's a terrible system and should be made better.

Roderick_BR
2007-12-06, 10:04 AM
Not really. For example, if you're playing a 100-hp Shock Trooper-Dungeoncrasher Fighter of Cheesy Goodness, and there's a 60-hp combat-focused rogue with maxed ranks of Disable Device and Search. You do much more than him in combat, but he's not useless, since he can also mess around with traps.
See, in your example, the fighter is good at fighting. The rogue is good in being stealthy and disabling traps. They both are good in their areas. The rogue is not as good as the fighter in combat, and the fighter can't figure out how a trap works. That's good balance.

Then the wizard comes and easily beats the fighter in combat, and outperform the rogue's skills.
That's what we call unbalanced system.


Nope, they're just more useful than you are. Less useful is not the same thing as useless. Describing this condition as "useless" is just exaggerating for effect; it's not bad as rhetoric goes, but it's not a valid claim.

If you have two fighters in the group; the first one is far more powerful than the second; the second one isn't useless simply because there's someone in the group that can do everything he can better. Less useful, to be sure; he can contribute less in every possible situation.

We're not talking about an MMO where a fighter is going to be competing for a cleric for the tank spot in the group, so there's nothing with being less useful than some other class.
No. If you compare levels and ability choices between characters of the same class, you are just comparing builds. The guy that picked a great axe and went power attack/troop shocking route, is obviously more powerful in direct damage than the other that decided to invest heavily in light weapons and the dodge/spring attack tree. The fast guy wanted to do something different, and maybe less effective in direct combat (maybe he concentrates in taking out several mooks at once, instead of one-shotting BBEGs).
But when two characters of same level, and different classes can easily one outperform the other, in his own area, no matter how cheesey the first try to be... well, there's something wrong here.

No one is talking about MMOs too, we are talking about contributing to the group.

Graxis
2007-12-06, 10:12 AM
Sure. But the system should help the DM do that rather than making it harder.

If my job is to build a house, and the system I'm working in provides me with nothing but crude hand tools and some warped lumber, I can probably still build a livable house if I'm a good enough carpenter and put enough work into it. That doesn't mean the system is good. In fact, if the system requires a brilliant carpenter and a huge amount of labor to produce a functional house, it's a terrible system and should be made better.

True. But I'll take the brilliant carpenter every time :smallbiggrin:

PS: WTB less miniature-intensive combat and less convoluted combat rules. I miss the imagination aspect because I have to play with my eyes open all the time now.

Indon
2007-12-06, 10:14 AM
No. If you compare levels and ability choices between characters of the same class, you are just comparing builds. The guy that picked a great axe and went power attack/troop shocking route, is obviously more powerful in direct damage than the other that decided to invest heavily in light weapons and the dodge/spring attack tree. The fast guy wanted to do something different, and maybe less effective in direct combat (maybe he concentrates in taking out several mooks at once, instead of one-shotting BBEGs).


No, that's a very good example of imbalance in the system, because Spring Attack doesn't make you better at any function of significance compared to a Power Attack charger.

Spring Attack means one mook per round; which is actually less than a Power Attacker with Cleave, if there are any mooks near each other.

The Spring Attacker can move away from their target, but in many circumstances the target can just charge the Spring Attacker and actually hit them more easily than if the SA'er never moved.

And of course, a Power Attacker can feasibly one-round the BBEG.

This goes to show that imbalance is in more than just class; wherever you have a character build choice, you can have imbalance. Skills (UMD anyone?) feats (PA/Shock Trooper, of course), Races (Most kinds of HD just aren't good), and templates, even (Poor, poor vampire and lich...).

A D&D 3.x with only the classes balanced is still an imbalanced system; just not quite so blatantly.

Fiery Diamond
2007-12-06, 10:34 AM
Refer back to my previous post (page 4 or 5, I can't remember).


AGREE ON A DEFINITION OF BALANCE BEFORE ARGUING. Yeesh.


- Fiery Diamond

Kaelik
2007-12-06, 10:37 AM
1) "Most incantatrixes are female; the rare males who take up this class are known as incantatars." That's from the Player's Guide to Faerun, bub. Page 61.

Ah, thank you. I had always wondered where that was coming from, perhaps a foreign language version I thought. In fact it's something similar, you see, I do not look at the Players Guide to Faerun, I use Magic of Faerun, which has an identically named Incantatrix class, but with different fluff and different mechanics. (I just discovered this now when I went to see if the Incantatrix is actually in two books.)


2) I've played D&D for over 12 years. I've seen everything a Wizard has to offer, played far better than 12 more years of playing Wizards could ever teach me. Boo on you, sir, for just throwing out the newb comments.

I was not saying "OMG! URTEHN00B!" I was just saying that the first time playing a Wizard is different from a more experienced Wizard player. The first time I played, I was nowhere near ass competent as I am now.


3) Debuffing. Slow it down, keep multiple enemies from reaching him (he is the up-front tank of the party). Make sure we only need to fight one at a time and can focus fire them down. Would it kill him if not debuffed? Well, a lot of these things would anyone if not ratcheted down a few notches first. The party is quite over a normal CR-appropriate challenge.

Slow it down? have only one reach him at a time? Why not use Avasculate or Orb Spells? Do tons of damage and stun them at the same time (against single targets.) How about Evard's Black tentacles and then hand your Fighter a Ring of Freedom of Movement (or have the Cleric cast it on him.) practically guaranteed that a group of medium creatures will never even be able to attack him. Finger of Death, just kill them. Reverse Gravity, immobilize everything and then pick them off at will.

If all you are doing is slowing them down then you aren't making efficient use of your resources.


4)You're right. To be specific, the gish class is a Duskblade. As played, however (due to some alignment changes), he plays as a fighter would. There are a few similarities. But no, the comparison isn't completely valid.

Actually, the Duskblade is much more of a Fighter then a true gish, and if you have an alignment issue that compounds that even more so. But still not a fighter, and Duskblades are a very useful class props to him on the choice.

Morty
2007-12-06, 10:54 AM
Nope, they're just more useful than you are. Less useful is not the same thing as useless. Describing this condition as "useless" is just exaggerating for effect; it's not bad as rhetoric goes, but it's not a valid claim.

If you have two fighters in the group; the first one is far more powerful than the second; the second one isn't useless simply because there's someone in the group that can do everything he can better. Less useful, to be sure; he can contribute less in every possible situation.


You're still missing the point. If one character is less powerful than the other because players have different optimization skills or one simply doesn't care about min-maxing, it's alright. But if one character is vastly less useful than the other only because player chose to be fighter instead of cleric or wizard, it's class imbalance that disrupts the game.


Easier way: "No, you can't play a Wizard. You can play a different arcane class instead if you like."

What other arcane class? Sorcerers are as bad as wizards and bards aren't really arcane casters.


The Vancian swordsman can not exist alongside the Fighter or Paladin.

:smallconfused: Where do you get Vancian swordsmen?

Alex12
2007-12-06, 10:57 AM
What other arcane class? Sorcerers are as bad as wizards and bards aren't really arcane casters.

"Sorry, you can't play an arcane caster. Psionics is available though."

Graxis
2007-12-06, 11:02 AM
By "slowing them down," I'm implying more than just movement speed.

Avasculate: Evil-only. No good for a Good character.
Finger of Death: Covered.
Orb spells? Got 'em. And a sorcerer. And a Shadowcraft Mage. And a Cleric. The damage part is pretty well covered. I'm just out to make it easy. Most days I don't even memorize a DD spell.

And the upped CRs mean that saves can be close to 50/50 at the start of an encounter. No save/SR spells seem to be a lot more effective, relative to the setting.

That said, this is totally off-topic.

Indon
2007-12-06, 11:04 AM
You're still missing the point. If one character is less powerful than the other because players have different optimization skills or one simply doesn't care about min-maxing, it's alright. But if one character is vastly less useful than the other only because player chose to be fighter instead of cleric or wizard, it's class imbalance that disrupts the game.

Class is an optimization choice.

That aside, if one character is vastly less useful than another simply because a player chose to fight with two weapons instead of one (which happens, now doesn't it, and we don't even need to go into sword and board), then that's also class imbalance that disrupts the game. It's slightly less obvious, but it's the same thing - character options lead to disparities in character effectiveness.



What other arcane class? Sorcerers are as bad as wizards and bards aren't really arcane casters.

I was actually thinking of non-core classes such as the Binder or Warlock. Don't give me "They aren't really arcane casters", either. They have all the flavor of the arcane caster and the only thing that's different is that their capabilities aren't ridiculously broken. If you really want a utility-based caster, you can use the Truenamer. But if your definition of "Arcane Caster" is "Unbalanced effects user", then nobody can help you.

Though, I guess Psionics could be an option. Not so much experience with them.



:smallconfused: Where do you get Vancian swordsmen?

From the book with a chapter called "Sword Magic": The Tome of Battle.

Morty
2007-12-06, 11:10 AM
Class is an optimization choice.

Not if someone is punished for roleplaying choice of playing a fighter.


That aside, if one character is vastly less useful than another simply because a player chose to fight with two weapons instead of one (which happens, now doesn't it), then that's also class imbalance that disrupts the game. It's slightly less obvious, but it's the same thing - character options lead to disparities in character effectiveness.

Imbalance between choices such as TWF i THF is another matter. They should be balanced as well, but classes come first.


I was actually thinking of non-core classes such as the Binder or Warlock. Don't give me "They aren't really arcane casters", either. They have all the flavor of the arcane caster and the only thing that's different is that their capabilities aren't ridiculously broken. If you really want a utility-based caster, you can use the Truenamer. But if your definition of "Arcane Caster" is "Unbalanced effects user", then nobody can help you.

Of course, that involves me buying sourcebooks not released in my country to play some classes I'm not too fond of just because someone wanted an unbalanced system.


From the book with a chapter called "Sword Magic": The Tome of Battle.

Now really, I'm not a ToB fan by any means, but this ridiculous "Sword Magic" flavor can be quite safely ignored.

Alex12
2007-12-06, 11:10 AM
I was actually thinking of non-core classes such as the Binder or Warlock. Don't give me "They aren't really arcane casters", either. They have all the flavor of the arcane caster and the only thing that's different is that their capabilities aren't ridiculously broken. If you really want a utility-based caster, you can use the Truenamer. But if your definition of "Arcane Caster" is "Unbalanced effects user", then nobody can help you.

Though, I guess Psionics could be an option. Not so much experience with them.

Psionics is awesome. Our next game, we're removing Wizards and Sorcerers and replacing them with Psions and Wilders respectively (Bards are okay, though)

Jayabalard
2007-12-06, 11:24 AM
You're still missing the point. If one character is less powerful than the other because players have different optimization skills or one simply doesn't care about min-maxing, it's alright. But if one character is vastly less useful than the other only because player chose to be fighter instead of cleric or wizard, it's class imbalance that disrupts the game.If you care so much about being powerful, why are they picking a fighter in a high magic world? Why not pick a more powerful class (one that uses magic), or play a game that isn't set in a high magic world so that there is more parity between magic users and non-magic users?

I'm glad to see that you've dropped "useless" in favor of "less useful"


Not if someone is punished for roleplaying choice of playing a fighter. I fail to see any punishment. You chose to play a class that is not a magic user in a high magic world; by definition, you're picking the suboptimal choice. You should be allowed to make a suboptimal choice if that's what you want to do; there's no punishment involved in choosing something suboptimal.


But when two characters of same level, and different classes can easily one outperform the other, in his own area, no matter how cheesey the first try to be... well, there's something wrong here.Why would one be a problem and not the other? I don't see any difference at all. In both cases, someone is being overshadowed in their classes primary role due to imbalances in the system. The point (which it seems that you missed) is that in both cases, the person being overshadowed is not useless, just less useful.

Arakune
2007-12-06, 11:34 AM
If you care so much about being powerful, why are they picking a fighter in a high magic world? Why not pick a more powerful class (one that uses magic), or play a game that isn't set in a high magic world so that there is more parity between magic users and non-magic users?

I'm glad to see that you've dropped "useless" in favor of "less useful"

I fail to see any punishment. You chose to play a class that is not a magic user in a high magic world; by definition, you're picking the suboptimal choice. You should be allowed to make a suboptimal choice if that's what you want to do; there's no punishment involved in choosing something suboptimal.

Why would one be a problem and not the other? I don't see any difference at all. In both cases, someone is being overshadowed in their classes primary role due to imbalances in the system. The point (which it seems that you missed) is that in both cases, the person being overshadowed is not useless, just less useful.

In the limit of the less usefulness, he are useless.
Love calculus 1 for this thing.


Edit: Are you saying that you want to use a 'use impaired' class when there is more powerful, or, in your own words, 'standardly' useful classes, since the normal outclassed class are 'less useful' the class that outshine it must be the standard, correct?

Artanis
2007-12-06, 11:43 AM
If you care so much about being powerful, why are they picking a fighter in a high magic world? Why not pick a more powerful class (one that uses magic), or play a game that isn't set in a high magic world so that there is more parity between magic users and non-magic users?

I'm glad to see that you've dropped "useless" in favor of "less useful"

I fail to see any punishment. You chose to play a class that is not a magic user in a high magic world; by definition, you're picking the suboptimal choice. You should be allowed to make a suboptimal choice if that's what you want to do; there's no punishment involved in choosing something suboptimal.
If fighters are supposed to be so categorically weak, then they should not be offered as a class choice. The fact that they are presented as a choice implies that, for whatever reason, they ARE capable of keeping up, regardless of what "makes sense".

Jayabalard
2007-12-06, 11:46 AM
In the limit of the less usefulness, he are useless.

Love calculus 1 for this thing.I don't think this is very useful.

Assuming that you mean that a character tends to uselessness as another character's power approaches infinity, if pun-pun is a character in your group, the wizard and fighter that are also in the group are equally useless, and relatively speaking a fighter is just as useful as a wizard.

Arakune
2007-12-06, 11:48 AM
*I don't think this is very useful.

Assuming that you mean that a character tends to uselessness as another character's power approaches infinity, if pun-pun is a character in your group, the wizard and fighter that are also in the group are equally useless, and relatively speaking a fighter is just as useful as a wizard.

No, I'm saying that if the limit of the character usefulness tend to zero (but still is not zero), then it is useless.

Edit: He, now that's funny. :smallamused:

Indon
2007-12-06, 11:49 AM
Imbalance between choices such as TWF i THF is another matter. They should be balanced as well, but classes come first.

This is only because there are class imbalances which are larger than imbalance with other mechanics. It's still 'punishing for roleplaying choices', though. And if anything, it's presently easier to balance the Fighter than TWF/THF/Sword and Board; since, after all, you can just safely ignore the "sword magic" flavor, replace the Fighter with the Warblade... but the TWF/THF difference remains.



Of course, that involves me buying sourcebooks not released in my country to play some classes I'm not too fond of just because someone wanted an unbalanced system.

I'm not fond of them either. But the balanced system could just package them up in the Core book and make me use them, now couldn't they? Just because someone wanted a balanced system.



Now really, I'm not a ToB fan by any means, but this ridiculous "Sword Magic" flavor can be quite safely ignored.
And you can ignore the flavor of many alternate caster classes. Reflavoring means any class is ultimately replacable.


No, I'm saying that if the limit of the character usefulness tend to zero (but still is not zero), then it is useless.

Edit: He, now that's funny. :smallamused:

Limit of character usefulness tends to zero in regards to what variable? Level?

Because by the level measurement, all classes without Spellcraft as a class skill would be considered useless - no access to Epic Magic (even mediated by the DM, it's very potent).

Jayabalard
2007-12-06, 11:49 AM
If fighters are supposed to be so categorically weak, then they should not be offered as a class choice.Your preference, I prefer having lots of options, including ones that are inherantly suboptimal. I like the fact that there are several sets of similar classes with vastly different power levels.


The fact that they are presented as a choice implies that, for whatever reason, they ARE capable of keeping up, regardless of what "makes sense".Not in the slightest.


No, I'm saying that if the limit of the character usefulness tend to zero (but still is not zero), then it is useless.Then you're making a false statement rather than a non-useful statement; the usefulness of a fighter does not tend toward 0 unless something else is approaching infinity. The usefulness of a wizard does not approach infinity.

Arakune
2007-12-06, 11:58 AM
Then you're making a false statement rather than a non-useful statement; the usefulness of a fighter does not tend toward 0 unless something else is approaching infinity. The usefulness of a wizard does not approach infinity.

Not again, the usefulness of the fighter tends toward 0 when he advances the level (where, theorically, there is no upper bound and a crazy DM can make a game go for NI high level). His usefulness go towards 0, thus he are useless, and the wizard usefulness go towards infinity (since he can craft an epic spell for anything he wants given infinity time + infinity level).

Starbuck_II
2007-12-06, 12:01 PM
Your preference, I prefer having lots of options, including ones that are inherantly suboptimal. I like the fact that there are several sets of similar classes with vastly different power levels.

Not in the slightest.

Then you're making a false statement rather than a non-useful statement; the usefulness of a fighter does not tend toward 0 unless something else is approaching infinity. The usefulness of a wizard does not approach infinity.

Pun-Pun tends tpoeard infinity. The fastest way is Legal way is Wizard thus, Wizards can approach infinity.

Indon
2007-12-06, 12:04 PM
Not again, the usefulness of the fighter tends toward 0 when he advances the level (where, theorically, there is no upper bound and a crazy DM can make a game go for NI high level). His usefulness go towards 0, and the wizard usefulness go towards infinity (since he can craft an epic spell for anything he wants given infinity time + infinity level).

By your measurement, all classes which can eventually access Epic Spellcasting are useful, and all classes which can not are useless.

Thus, the Bard (which, lacking 9'th level spells, can never access epic spellcasting) is as useful by your reckoning as the Complete Warrior Samurai.

Edit: Given this fact, I would assert that your measurement of class usefulness approaches laughably absurd as examination of its' ramifications approach infinity. :P

Starbuck_II
2007-12-06, 12:05 PM
By your measurement, all classes which can eventually access Epic Spellcasting are useful, and all classes which can not are useless.

Thus, the Bard (which, lacking 9'th level spells, can never access epic spellcasting) is as useful by your reckoning as the Complete Warrior Samurai.

Actually, Bards can by Sublime Chord Prc, among other ways.

Artanis
2007-12-06, 12:06 PM
Your preference, I prefer having lots of options, including ones that are inherantly suboptimal. I like the fact that there are several sets of similar classes with vastly different power levels.
But there are lots of inherently suboptimal choices even in a well-balanced system. The most obvious one is just giving some people level advantages, or deliberately under-optimizing your character.


Not in the slightest.
The problem is that DnD is a game. As such, most people expect that if a choice is given, that choice will be at least playable.

Indon
2007-12-06, 12:07 PM
Actually, Bards can by Sublime Chord Prc, among other ways.

If we're including PrC's, feats, and so on, then chances are there's a way for an infinite-leveled Fighter to eventually gain access to epic spellcasting or an equivalent ability, which makes the comparison moot as all classes are now equally useful.

Arakune
2007-12-06, 12:08 PM
By your measurement, all classes which can eventually access Epic Spellcasting are useful, and all classes which can not are useless.

Thus, the Bard (which, lacking 9'th level spells, can never access epic spellcasting) is as useful by your reckoning as the Complete Warrior Samurai.

But the CW samurai reaches useless much, much MUCH faster than the bard. And I said that when the usefulness tend towards 0, it is useless.

I just said the epic spell because it can scale with the wizard level (more ranks in spell craft) and the wizard only gets more and more useful. But a fighter (my first statement never mentioned then) have it's usefulness go towards 0.


In the limit of the less usefulness, he are useless.
Love calculus 1 for this thing.


It's just funny that the fighter fall in to this statement. :smallbiggrin:



If you're calculating the limit as level approaches infinity, it doesn't matter when other classes hit zero (because technically, none of them actually _hit_ zero) - only that they all do but the Epic Spellcasters. That's kinda how calculus works.

True, but it's good to look at the graphic and see that while some class struggle hopelessly but still manage to give some job done before falling into the oblivion of usefulness, some others born dammed since the very beginning, and even the other less useful -> useless classes look at him and laugh.

Indon
2007-12-06, 12:10 PM
But the CW samurai reaches useless much, much MUCH faster than the bard. And I said that when the usefulness tend towards 0, it is useless.

I just said the epic spell because it can scale with the wizard level (more ranks in spell craft) and the wizard only gets more and more useful. But a fighter (my first statement never mentioned then) have it's usefulness go towards 0.

If you're calculating the limit as level approaches infinity, it doesn't matter when other classes hit zero (because technically, none of them actually _hit_ zero) - only that they all do but the Epic Spellcasters. That's kinda how calculus works.

Edit: My point is that usefulness in a party must be viewed in relative terms. This 'calculus' junk is amusing, but ultimately not a good benchmark for, well, anything in the conversation.

GoC
2007-12-06, 12:29 PM
Because 4' of sharp steel should always be lethal.

:smallconfused:
Is that sarcasm?


That depends. If we have a 15th level fighter and a 15th level wizard, yes, they should be on the same level. This is implied by the word "level".

No matter what you do fighters will become useless by the time wizards can fly all day.
The only solutions are to either remove anything that doesn't deal direct damage or summon a tanking monster, or to say that fighters shouldn't be used past level 10.

SpikeFightwicky
2007-12-06, 12:44 PM
Um... people who prefer action-heavy campaigns won't be playing bards.

Technically, it should have said "people who prefer melee combat in action-heavy campaigns won't be playing bards."

It's easy to make a bard that can contribute in combat heavy environments (heck, I find a bard makes a good Indiana Jones type character). They get a good deal of buff and control spells.

Jayabalard
2007-12-06, 01:07 PM
But there are lots of inherently suboptimal choices even in a well-balanced system. The most obvious one is just giving some people level advantages, or deliberately under-optimizing your character.You have an odd definition of "well balanced system".


The problem is that DnD is a game. As such, most people expect that if a choice is given, that choice will be at least playable.They are playable. Playable does not mean the same thing as "optimal"

A class with d4 hp, 0 skill points per level, no feats a class ability that permanently reduces all of your attributes to 8 and no other class features is playable; not many people would choose that class, but it can be played.


No matter what you do fighters will become useless by the time wizards can fly all day.Less useful, not useless.

The only solutions are to either remove anything that doesn't deal direct damage or summon a tanking monster, or to say that fighters shouldn't be used past level 10.Or you can learn to enjoy a play style that doesn't require you to be able to be better than someone else.


Pun-Pun tends tpoeard infinity. The fastest way is Legal way is Wizard thus, Wizards can approach infinity.as I recall, the fastest legal way just involves making a 25 knowledge religion check, and the claim that I remember seeing is that it can be done by any class at level 1.... so fighters also approach infinity.

sure, you can make a sub-optimal build decision like "not becoming pun-pun" if you want. :smallbiggrin:


Edit: My point is that usefulness in a party must be viewed in relative terms. This 'calculus' junk is amusing, but ultimately not a good benchmark for, well, anything in the conversation.Agreed.

Craig1f
2007-12-06, 01:13 PM
I think I've found a good solution for fighters and barbarians.

1/day feats.

The idea is, that you get special feats at every level, that can only be used 1/day, much like spells. The feats you get normally, as fighter bonuses, or level bonuses, don't change. And special feats cannot be used as prerequisites.

But just imagine it ... you get improved sunder 1/day. you get improved bull rush 1/day. improved grapple 1/day. This would give the fighter a lot of versatility, without too much overpoweredness.

Morty
2007-12-06, 01:18 PM
I fail to see any punishment. You chose to play a class that is not a magic user in a high magic world; by definition, you're picking the suboptimal choice. You should be allowed to make a suboptimal choice if that's what you want to do; there's no punishment involved in choosing something suboptimal.

No, I'm not picking a suboptimal choice. Who are you to decide what's suboptimal and what's not? I'm picking choice that is supposed to be on par with others, but isn't, due to system's failings. Is that so hard to understand? You think that classes are supposed to be imbalanced. But D&D is built on the premise that classes are equally useful.


Or you can learn to enjoy a play style that doesn't require you to be able to be better than someone else.

Here we go again, claiming that your way of playing is superior.
It's not about being better, it's about not being worse just because flavor choice I make.


I'm not fond of them either. But the balanced system could just package them up in the Core book and make me use them, now couldn't they? Just because someone wanted a balanced system.

And then you'd give them double their class features per day. Voila, you have class that's inherently superior to others.


And you can ignore the flavor of many alternate caster classes. Reflavoring means any class is ultimately replacable.

Umm... no. I can swap the flavor of Warblade to turn him into fighter, because all Warblade does is fight with weapons, just in different way. But it's not the case with replacing wizards with ToM classes.

Frosty
2007-12-06, 01:32 PM
I think I've found a good solution for fighters and barbarians.

1/day feats.

The idea is, that you get special feats at every level, that can only be used 1/day, much like spells. The feats you get normally, as fighter bonuses, or level bonuses, don't change. And special feats cannot be used as prerequisites.

But just imagine it ... you get improved sunder 1/day. you get improved bull rush 1/day. improved grapple 1/day. This would give the fighter a lot of versatility, without too much overpoweredness.


It should be x/times per encounter to be actually useful, with a method to regain the special attacks if need be.

AKA_Bait
2007-12-06, 02:29 PM
It should be x/times per encounter to be actually useful, with a method to regain the special attacks if need be.

So, ToB classes then?


And you can ignore the flavor of many alternate caster classes. Reflavoring means any class is ultimately replacable.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'class' and 'replacable' here. If by class you mean 'the flavor assigned to a set of mechanics' then sure. If, as I usually do, you mean 'a set of mechanics' then there might be an issue. In the end, you can reflavor ANY class. It's the mechanics that are an issue for balance.

Indon
2007-12-06, 03:10 PM
And then you'd give them double their class features per day. Voila, you have class that's inherently superior to others.

You think I don't like the Truenamer and Binder because they're not powerful enough? No, I don't like the Truenamer and Binder because I don't like their mechanics, presumably the same reason you don't like them and don't want to use them to balance your game.



Umm... no. I can swap the flavor of Warblade to turn him into fighter, because all Warblade does is fight with weapons, just in different way. But it's not the case with replacing wizards with ToM classes.

All the Binder does is fulfill arcane versatility, just less powerfully (also, different way and flavor).

Reflavoring is pretty easy, and can be done in awfully extreme cases. All you have to do is be willing to sacrifice mechanical diversity.

Edit:


I'm not sure what you mean by 'class' and 'replacable' here. If by class you mean 'the flavor assigned to a set of mechanics' then sure. If, as I usually do, you mean 'a set of mechanics' then there might be an issue. In the end, you can reflavor ANY class. It's the mechanics that are an issue for balance.

I mean 'set of mechanics' and 'roll a swordsage and just call it a monk'.

If you can change the flavor assigned to a set of mechanics, then you're equally capable of removing a set of mechanics, moving in a different set, and adjusting the flavor to match.

Craig1f
2007-12-06, 03:16 PM
It should be x/times per encounter to be actually useful, with a method to regain the special attacks if need be.

I'm not sure if I'd make it x/encounter. Simply because you'd be trying to get your trip, sunder, grapple in each fight.

I want to give fighter-types the option to use these abilities whenever they are needed, without making them one-trick ponies where every fight consists of a grapple since they choose grapple, or every fight consists of constant tripping since they choose trip, etc.

Right now, fighter-types pick some combat style, determined by what feats they've chosen, and they just do that one thing constantly. The only real variety a fighter gets is the decision of how much they should power attack, which can pretty much be determined by making a spreadsheet.

Magic-types get so much variety. They pick a bag of tricks and use them. Fighter-types just "power attack 3, charge!" Or "I picked improved trip, so I'll trip every round!"

I'd like more trips, grapples, sunders, etc thrown into the mix, without having to require feat trees to use any of those things.

AKA_Bait
2007-12-06, 03:34 PM
If you can change the flavor assigned to a set of mechanics, then you're equally capable of removing a set of mechanics, moving in a different set, and adjusting the flavor to match.

I'm not sure that's true. Just because a particular flavor, say 'big strong guy who hits things with pointy sticks', might be able to cover a wide range of mechanics doesn't mean that any set of mechanics can slide in there. Nor is the reverse true, just because a particular set of mechanics can be described and pictured in several ways doesn't mean that you could reflavor it however you want. Some flavors will only work with some mechanics and some mechanics will only work with some flavors.

That said, I doubt there is any base class in the game where you could not swap out one set of mechanics for at least one other option without changing the flavor. I doubt there is any flavor that couldn't apply to more the one set of mechanics. However, that because you can do one you can do the other are not logically linked. It just happens to be that way.

Mando Knight
2007-12-06, 03:36 PM
First off, what use does a fighter have when a wizard can fly around blowing stuff up at will like a super-Batman? If he has none, then he is, by definition, useless.

...oh... wait... I figured one out! He's target practice for the wizard! THAT'S USEFUL!:smallbiggrin:

Secondly, why should a 17 year old wizard (the minimum age for a human of that class, as according to the SRD) be able to annihilate reality with his mind when nearly all of the classical wizards (not Harry Potter) are clearly ancient who have trained for decades or even centuries? And why can't a fighter be a Beowulf or an Aragorn while every single wizard gets to be Merlin or Dumbledore?

Seriously, if anyone can be Gandalf, but no one can be Aragorn, something is broken. You would think that a game in which you can play as a wizard or a knight would allow you to choose between Gandalf and Aragorn, not between Semi-Omnipotent-Deity-Guy and Random-Castle-Guard-Guy!

To take the analogy into sci-fi, I don't think there should be a choice between a soldier and a mythic sage if the choice has to be between Yoda and those Star Trek Redshirts!

Remember, PCs are heroes, they're supposed to be completely superior to their fellow man. A fighter PC who uses a greatsword should be able to swing that sword and cut off a dragon's head, wrestle to the death with monsters and their mothers in underwater caverns (see Beowulf), and single-handedly kill the evil sorceror who's holding the beautiful princess hostage.

Jayabalard
2007-12-06, 03:47 PM
But D&D is built on the premise that classes are equally useful.I don't think that the wide variation in the level of abilities and power that classes have is accidental; I'm convinced that it's quite intentional that some classes bring more to the table than others.


Here we go again, claiming that your way of playing is superior.
It's not about being better, it's about not being worse just because flavor choice I make.I'm not sure how you got that; to make sure that I am clear: I was simply offering a third option. I'm not saying that it's better, or that everyone should do it... just that there are more options than either:

remove any [spells] that don't deal direct damage or summon a tanking monster
say that fighters shouldn't be used past level 10.

AKA_Bait
2007-12-06, 03:53 PM
I don't think that the wide variation in the level of abilities and power that classes have is accidental; I'm convinced that it's quite intentional that some classes bring more to the table than others.


Really? Where are you getting that from? From reading the PHB I got the distinct impression just the opposite was the case.

Jayabalard
2007-12-06, 04:32 PM
First off, what use does a fighter have when a wizard can fly around blowing stuff up at will like a super-Batman? If he has none, then he is, by definition, useless.Swinging his sharpened piece of metal at stuff while the wizard is blowing something else ... just at a guess.


Secondly, why should a 17 year old wizard (the minimum age for a human of that class, as according to the SRD) be able to annihilate reality with his mind when nearly all of the classical wizards (not Harry Potter) are clearly ancient who have trained for decades or even centuries?
Garion was ~17 as I recall, and he was stronger than men who had been practicing their craft for centuries.
The Sourceror was more powerful than any wizard on the Disc, probably more powerful than any wizard in a very long time.
Pug is quite young when he comes into his power.
Eskarina Smith was VERY young.


That's 4 off the top of my head. All of them are kind of special cases, but then again, the same can probably be said about a D&D PC that levels to high level in a very brief time. I don't really like that sort of speedy advancement myself, but that's a failing of D&D's leveling mechanic and really has nothing to do with class balance.


And why can't a fighter be a Beowulf or an Aragorn while every single wizard gets to be Merlin or Dumbledore?Aragorn is probably a bad choice as an example, since many people claim that he can be modeled as a 5th level fighter, and I think Beowulf can probably modeled as a high level fighter fairly well.


Seriously, if anyone can be Gandalf, but no one can be Aragorn, something is broken. You would think that a game in which you can play as a wizard or a knight would allow you to choose between Gandalf and Aragorn, not between Semi-Omnipotent-Deity-Guy and Random-Castle-Guard-Guy!Gandalf can't really be modeled in D&D very well; certainly, a high level D&D wizard isn't a good model for him. Considering what Gandalf's speculated LA, it's easier to play Aragorn in D&D.


Remember, PCs are heroes, they're supposed to be completely superior to their fellow man. A fighter PC who uses a greatsword should be able to swing that sword and cut off a dragon's head, wrestle to the death with monsters and their mothers in underwater caverns (see Beowulf), a high level D&D fighter can do all of this.

Beowulf's Dragon is not in the same league with D&D dragons; with a vorpal sword, a D&D fighter could indeed cut off a Dragon's head. A high level fighter can certainly wrestle many monsters or their mothers to death, and since we have no concrete evidence of Beowulf's level vs Grendel's CR, I don't see any problems.


single-handedly kill the evil sorceror who's holding the beautiful princess hostage.Do you have examples of this from fiction or myth? preferably one where the warrior does it without falling back on luck. I can't think of any offhand. Most of the time they have help, or the sorceror has some sort of Achilles heel that the warrior exploits, or the warrior just gets extremely lucky.


Really? Where are you getting that from? From reading the PHB I got the distinct impression just the opposite was the case.From reading at the abilities that designers gave the various classes; some are quite clearly intended to be more powerful than others.

Serenity
2007-12-06, 04:33 PM
I note that still no one has even attempted to explain to me what the benefit of unbalance is. Nor how you can't just unbalance a balanced system to the same effect.

Now what in the world makes the concept of a wizard inherently superior to the concept of a fighter, even in a high magic world? That's the way it currently is in D&D, but I see no reason it should have to be. Buffy, for example, is pretty clearly a high magic world. Supernatural threats of all kinds run rampant, various artifacts of legend are frequently an episode's MacGuffin, and a Witch who trains and increases her power sufficiently can do pretty much whatever she wants. But spell-slinging is not easy, and the primal forces you're playing with occasionally hit back. And even when the Witch is at the top of her game, a Slayer, a Vampire, or a Commando are all just as useful to the teams efforts, and are probably able to take the witch down. And all they do is hit stuff. Hmm, high magic world, powerful casters...and yet the fighter-types aren't outshone in the slightest.

Nowhere Girl
2007-12-06, 04:34 PM
I think that, sometimes, people dig in their heels and stubbornly continue to argue a patently ridiculous position (such as "gross mechanical imbalance is good for a system") just for the sake of arguing, even when there's clearly no real, logical support for that position. Perhaps at that point, trying to discuss the topic any further really is a pointless exercise.

The problem has been clearly stated. A solution (use different character levels) to create imbalance if you desire it has been stated. There's nothing else to say, because the rest of the argument is just absurd.

Jayabalard
2007-12-06, 04:52 PM
I note that still no one has even attempted to explain to me what the benefit of unbalance is. Nor how you can't just unbalance a balanced system to the same effect.Multiple people have mentioned things that they like out of unbalanced systems.

There have also been a few people who mentioned why it's not the easy fix that people keep assuming to make a balanced system into a good unbalanced one.

I'm not sure whether your statement is is rhetoric, with you you just writing off those explanations as non-valid, or if you need to go back and re-read the thread a bit more carefully.


Now what in the world makes the concept of a wizard inherently superior to the concept of a fighter, even in a high magic world? It's the "high magic" part. In a high magic world, magic, and the people who use it, are far more powerful than the people who don't.


That's the way it currently is in D&D, but I see no reason it should have to be. Buffy, for example, is pretty clearly a high magic world. Supernatural threats of all kinds run rampant, various artifacts of legend are frequently an episode's MacGuffin, and a Witch who trains and increases her power sufficiently can do pretty much whatever she wants. But spell-slinging is not easy, and the primal forces you're playing with occasionally hit back. And even when the Witch is at the top of her game, a Slayer, a Vampire, or a Commando are all just as useful to the teams efforts, and are probably able to take the witch down. And all they do is hit stuff. Hmm, high magic world, powerful casters...and yet the fighter-types aren't outshone in the slightest.I don't really follow Buffy, but I wouldn't rate the Buffyverse as "high magic" and, as I recall, most of the "fighter types" are more than a tad supernatural, so they're not really comparable to D&D's Fighters... both of which explain why the "fighter types" aren't outshone.

the latter is closely related to the large amount of people who "solve" the "imbalance problem" of monks by telling people to play an unarmed swordsage... moving to a more supernatural/less mundane martial class helps quite a bit.


I think that, sometimes, people dig in their heels and stubbornly continue to argue a patently ridiculous position (such as "gross mechanical imbalance is good for a system") I don't see it as a patently ridiculous position, any more than "I prefer Chocolate Ice cream to Strawberry Ice Cream" is a patently ridiculous position.

AKA_Bait
2007-12-06, 05:00 PM
From reading at the abilities that designers gave the various classes; some are quite clearly intended to be more powerful than others.

You sir, are confusing results with intention. I don't remember the link to proof but the original designers didn't expect people to use the classes the way people frequently do now. They expected arcane spell casters to be blasters, for example and didn't playtest with at 'batman' at all. Just because it came out that way doesn't mean they intended for it to.


I think that, sometimes, people dig in their heels and stubbornly continue to argue a patently ridiculous position (such as "gross mechanical imbalance is good for a system") just for the sake of arguing, even when there's clearly no real, logical support for that position. Perhaps at that point, trying to discuss the topic any further really is a pointless exercise.

The problem has been clearly stated. A solution (use different character levels) to create imbalance if you desire it has been stated. There's nothing else to say, because the rest of the argument is just absurd.

Now now, liking a system where there is a mechanical imbalance bettween the classes is not absurd. If that is the kind of system you want, then there is no reason for it not to be the default system. Personally, I can see some merit in a slight imbalance in a system. I kind of like the idea of some classes being inherently more powerful than others and playing the gritty fighter in a world where they can only get 'so good' in comparison to other powerful people.

The main objection I have is that D&D is not upfront about it, the difference is too large, and spell lists have been made so versitle that casters can fulfill any party role. There shouldn't be spells that let casters do what fighters can do, ie hit things really hard with an axe. However, it doesn't really bother me if in a one on one fight a wizard can turn a fighter into a pile of ash with little tado. It's a team game afterall and you are not competing against the other players.

Arakune
2007-12-06, 05:54 PM
And this thread proves once again that this scenario happen:

Guy A:" ... and then I will use spell XXXX to get the (lesser) artifact of (semi-)doom(tm)!"
Guy B:" Good thing we already cleared all the mooks and killed the villian."
Guy C:" ... "
Guy A:"Hey what with this face? Something wrong?"
Guy C:"Yeah, I almost didn't hit anything."
Guy B:"Well, it's not my fault you choose a suboptimal class. Deal with it."
Guy C:"I'm a fighter, I'm supposed to be the best at hitting tings and make it bleed to death, not you."
Guy B:"It's not my fault that clerics can get much more powerful than fighters in combat, I'm a magic user, after all. And you don't complain that the wizard can blast dragons to oblivion or simply kill then by pointing their finger to then."
Guy C:"I was, until I realized that arguing with someone that can cast Charm Person was useless, and he at least blow thing ups (and I still can't accept he should be able to kill some things this early) with magical power instead with heavy (and not always sharp) piece of metal, something you was doing before."
Guy B:"I told you: I'm a cleric and clerics can be more powerful than fighters and kill things that a normal fighter can't!"
Guy C:"But not by hitting things with heavy pieces of metal to death, which is MY job. You know what? I'm going to take magical training, it isn't the best solution now but it's not too late either."
Guy B:"But what about your character concept? I and the other guy are still playing it, you know? It's clearly immature to change your character concept in the middle of the campaign just because things are not 'fair'."
Guy C:"Ah, but my character have a very good motive to change it."
Guy A:"And it is?"
Guy C:"After this battle he started wondering why he didn't was killed until now: cheap piece of Deus ex Machina (DM:HEY!), the wizard killed the creature first, the cleric killed it first, and when he got separated from the party by a trap he almost died fighting something that the cleric killed it in one blow (to be fair, he pretty much landed some nasty attacks on that thing), etc. He wanted to be a fighter to protect the weak, to adventure, to earn glory, to see the true meaning of life, and he found it. Magic is superior to anything, it's so powerful and demonstrate it at such early stages that he wonder why there are still fools such as himself that still do martial training."
Guy C:"He learned a very good lesson: anything a fighter do, a cleric do better, easier, and with still room for more things to do."
Guy A and B:"I don't see what's wrong with that."
Guy C:"Want to trade? I play the cleric and you play the fighter? I can figure out how to survive."
Guy B:"No because I don't like the flavour of a fighter."
Guy C:"It's easy to say the flavour are bad when you have access to those innocent class abilities that manage to outfight my fighter.
Guy B:"Meh"

Werewindlefr
2007-12-06, 06:02 PM
The main objection I have is that D&D is not upfront about it, the difference is too large, and spell lists have been made so versitle that casters can fulfill any party role. There shouldn't be spells that let casters do what fighters can do, ie hit things really hard with an axe. However, it doesn't really bother me if in a one on one fight a wizard can turn a fighter into a pile of ash with little tado. It's a team game afterall and you are not competing against the other players.
And there are two ways to do such a thing:
-Either magic comes at a great cost. So, you wanna fight like a fighter for an hour? Are you ready to sacrifice a finger, your liver, or your sanity?

-Or there are things magic can't do. Or at least not easily. You can increase your own fighting abilities, but doing so reasonably should be require a lot of power. And Wizards/Sorcerers shouldn't be on a 1/2 BAB to begin with, because it doesn't require that much to put them on par with fighters.
Clerics either shouldn't have spells making them very powerful at fighting, or should have them but should be weak to begin with.

But here, it's not a matter of balance, but of archetype blurring.




think that, sometimes, people dig in their heels and stubbornly continue to argue a patently ridiculous position (such as "gross mechanical imbalance is good for a system") just for the sake of arguing

This is a blatant example of what I was criticizing: since you are not able to understand, you imply we are morons. So much for the relative friendliness of the discuss.

Frosty
2007-12-06, 06:03 PM
Nicely put, Ryuan. That is why Fighters need more abilities that let them do unique and fun and useful things without being locked into those actions once chosen. Abilities that can be used x times per encounter with some way of recovering the uses mid-battle.

Mando Knight
2007-12-06, 06:41 PM
Aragorn is probably a bad choice as an example, since many people claim that he can be modeled as a 5th level fighter,

A LEVEL 5 Fighter? LEVEL 5?!!?!

...Aragorn was in his prime of 87 when he joined Frodo on the quest to destroy the Ring, and came of age 67 years before then! He undertook many journeys even before the quest to defeat Sauron and destroy the Ring, destroying the rebellious Gondorian province of Umbar, personally killing their leader. If we're talking about the just-crowned King Elessar at the end of Return of the King, he's battled through the Mines of Moria, defended Helm's Deep, destroyed the siege of Minas Tirith, and battled his way to the Black Gate, holding off Sauron's armies until the Ring was destroyed. If Star Wars characters like Darth Vader can be level 19 at age 40-something, why not Aragorn at age 87?

...Actually, I'm not sure that Fighter is actually Aragorn's class. He shows significant prowess in healing, and is referred to as the Chieftain of the Rangers of the North, and is a skilled tracker. He's also a King. I think that he may instead be closer to a high level Ranger/Paladin... if you can multiclass into Paladin after taking levels in Ranger. Heal is most decidedly NOT a Fighter skill, yet he is known for his skill in using Athelas to heal his party members from lethal diseases.

I think that he'd do best as a level 5 Ranger/level 5 Paladin--they aren't guaranteed spells yet, though it's not far fetched for him to have longstrider (that's related to his own nicknames...) or cure minor wounds, or even Protection from Chaos/Evil (he managed to survive Pelennor Fields without serious injury, though he was in the thick of the battle).

...but maybe that's just a bit off topic...

I'll concede that Beowulf is a high-level hero, he already had some renown by the time he duels Grendel, and must be epic-level when he finally dies: he is a benchmark for being an epic hero, you know!

...but should you be able to rip off a monster's arm by level 10, shouldn't you? Beowulf did that... and that was near the beginning of his epic, so he couldn't be an extremely high level hero yet. Grendel was no *****-cat, either--it took the heroic Beowulf to keep King Heorot from losing his entire court.

...and then there's Grendel's mom... whose enchanted hide could not be pierced save by a magical giant's sword, which promptly melted in her boiling blood. She nearly kills him.

By the way, Grendel and his mother are both referred to with the adjective aglaeca, the same word used for Beowulf, which means "ferocious," "formidable," etc. meaning that they were not the simple CR1/2 Orcs.

What level of Wizard could destroy one of those monsters? What level of Fighter could do it? If Wizards can do it so easily, and Beowulf could too, then why not the player who wants to be the Knight in Shining Armor, saving the princess from the Evil Dragon (I'm talking about those CR 15+ dragons, not the wyrmlings)?

Why does the most stereotypical fantasy hero not get to defeat adult dragons all on his lonesome when the BatWizard can defeat Wyrms before reaching epic levels?

Hzurr
2007-12-06, 07:03 PM
I think that, sometimes, people dig in their heels and stubbornly continue to argue a patently ridiculous position (such as "gross mechanical imbalance is good for a system") just for the sake of arguing, even when there's clearly no real, logical support for that position. Perhaps at that point, trying to discuss the topic any further really is a pointless exercise.
That was never really the argument I was trying to make. I never said that imbalance is good for a system, I simply stated that when imbalance occurs, it isn't necessarily the end of the world. I mean, do I recognize that optimized fighters suck when compared to optimized clerics? Yep. Do I get my undies in a wad over it? Nope.


I think one key question that needs to be asked is this: If I'm playing a fighter, or a monk, or a Paladin, or an , and some of the other players are going to be playing clerics and wizards, [i]will I still have fun? If the answer is yes, then I think that whining and moaning over balance is irrelevant. If the answer is no, then it's relevant.

One interesting thing that seems to have come out of this discussion, is that depending on the group/dm/campaign level, the answer can be either yes or no.

Nowhere Girl
2007-12-06, 07:16 PM
Nicely put, Ryuan. That is why Fighters need more abilities that let them do unique and fun and useful things without being locked into those actions once chosen. Abilities that can be used x times per encounter with some way of recovering the uses mid-battle.

So, in other words, ToB classes. But that only fixes the melee classes -- the casters are still unbalanced, or at least the core ones are. Warlocks, warmages, beguilers, wu jen and dread necromancers might not be, although I'm not sure about that ... just tossing it out there.

Mostly, they're unbalanced because their spells are unbalanced, as has been stated before. Their full-casting-progression prestige classes are also unbalanced (even against other prestige classes), as they grant basically the whole real benefit of being a primary caster (casting progression) with almost no price paid whatsoever.

I liked ryuan's summary myself, though.


This is a blatant example of what I was criticizing: since you are not able to understand, you imply we are morons. So much for the relative friendliness of the discuss.

Well, no, because I wasn't even directing that at you. Just before you said this, you also made an argument yourself in favor of at least some form of balance. That's natural. After all, any rational person can see that if Class A can do X and only X with any competency, while Class B can do X better than Class A and then can also do Y and Z, without any kind of price paid whatsoever for all of this, there's a problem with the system.

I do get impatient after a while, yes. It's the same impatience I would exhibit if someone stubbornly insisted, against all available evidence to the contrary, that 2+2=5. Unless we're in the Ministry of Love, and I'm at the mercy of O'Brien, I'm just not going to agree to that or even respect it.

Woot Spitum
2007-12-06, 07:19 PM
You know, I've been thinking about what the OP said, and just realized that in four years of playing D&D, I've never played in a game where class balance ruined the game. In reality, the problems of one player hogging the spotlight are more of a problem with player attitude than of game balance. Even if all the classes were perfectly balanced, a player with this attitude problem will still dominate the game by thrusting themselves into the center of everything at every opportunity (making all the decisions about where the party goes and what they do when they get there, hogging all the conversations, complaing loudly about how the game has become "boring" whenever another character is briefly given the spotlight, etc.). You can tweak balance all you want, but game mechanics alone are only a small part of the real problem. Most players, once confronted with the fact that their character is dominating everything because their characters are more powerful than everyone else's will probably be willing to hold back so that the others can enjoy the spotlight. As for the rest, there is no system that will hold them back. If they don't break it outright, they'll just end up making everyone else miserable. And they'll still probably won't undrestand why everone has a problem with the way they play.

Nowhere Girl
2007-12-06, 07:26 PM
I think one key question that needs to be asked is this: If I'm playing a fighter, or a monk, or a Paladin, or an , and some of the other players are going to be playing clerics and wizards, [i]will I still have fun?

You know what? I agree! :smallbiggrin:

The thing I like about ToB classes, much more than how powerful they are or aren't, is how fun they are to play. In combat, and even out of it to an extent, you have options! It's refreshing. :smallsmile:

Here's the thing:

Is it possible to put those classes together and have everyone enjoy themselves? Yes, absolutely.

The problem is, it's very circumstantial. A completely optimized wizard will actually break the game, eventually. If you have someone like that in your party, the entire rest of the party is eventually rendered irrelevant, or nearly so. Only other full casters even matter anymore. Wizards are tricky, however, and it's very easy to make one be far from game-breaking, even at high levels.

Clerics are easier to break. They get all of their spells at every level automatically, and they don't technically need even a single feat to become so powerful. It's mostly all in their spells.

Druids only need one feat (Natural Spell), and they just break automatically. A perfectly innocent newbie can accidentally overpower a druid.

Meanwhile, on the other end of the scale, fighters take painstaking planning to simply be viable at higher levels, at all.

So ...

If all of the expert powergamers play fighters and monks, and if all of the newbies play full casters, you can end up with everyone just about equaled out. That's wonderful if it happens! But does that really make the system fine?

Edit: Even then, I think ToB classes are infinitely more fun to play than fighters and monks. I'd prefer them even if fighters and monks were mechanically stronger just because they're more enjoyable.

Frosty
2007-12-06, 07:28 PM
So, in other words, ToB classes. But that only fixes the melee classes -- the casters are still unbalanced, or at least the core ones are. Warlocks, warmages, beguilers, wu jen and dread necromancers might not be, although I'm not sure about that ... just tossing it out there.

Mostly, they're unbalanced because their spells are unbalanced, as has been stated before.

I agree that careful spell-restriction is crucial to be a good DM. That and item selection is important. I do not allow Polymorph or PAO in my games for example. I allow divine metamagic, but not allow prayer beads or any other ridiculous item that'd make your spells un-dispellable.

GoC
2007-12-06, 07:45 PM
Secondly, why should a 17 year old wizard (the minimum age for a human of that class, as according to the SRD) be able to annihilate reality with his mind when nearly all of the classical wizards (not Harry Potter) are clearly ancient who have trained for decades or even centuries?
Very good question. But unfortunately due to the way the stupid xp system works it's possible to become all powerful in a couple of months.


And why can't a fighter be a Beowulf or an Aragorn while every single wizard gets to be Merlin or Dumbledore?
Beowulf? Aragon?
If that dragon had been a D&D dragon it would have killed him easily.
At it was it was stretching suspension of disbelief to the limit (or so say all my friends).
Aragon is very weak compared to a flying wizard raining down hellfire.


Seriously, if anyone can be Gandalf, but no one can be Aragorn, something is broken. You would think that a game in which you can play as a wizard or a knight would allow you to choose between Gandalf and Aragorn, not between Semi-Omnipotent-Deity-Guy and Random-Castle-Guard-Guy!
Gandalf was pretty pathetic in D&D terms. He never really did anything that couldn't be replicated by a level 0 spell (or 1 in a special case).


A fighter PC who uses a greatsword should be able to swing that sword and cut off a dragon's head, wrestle to the death with monsters and their mothers in underwater caverns (see Beowulf), and single-handedly kill the evil sorceror who's holding the beautiful princess hostage.

That was a fairly stupid monster. Probably CR 4 when fighters are still useful.

I think we should just remove the fighter class and use ToB.

Bosh
2007-12-06, 08:42 PM
OK we've heard a lot of arguments (ones that are rather lacking in my opinion, but let's not belabor the point) about why power disparity is not necessary bad, but only one about why it would be good which is that in fantasy world with lots of magic, those who can use the magic should be top dog. That's it I think.

I don't think that this argument carried much weight for two reasons:

1. If you want more powerful magic users just make them be higher level. How hard is that? Sheesh.
2. D&D is not and never has been about constructing a realistic fantasy world. Just look at the D&D economy its so broken its ridiculous. Just look at Order of the Stick where a lot of D&D things are taken at face value, there's a 1001 things in D&D that are silly from the point of view of having a realistic fantasy world or having stories that are just like in fiction that are put in to make adventures more fun (or at least that was the intent). I don't want to appeal to authority but Gary Gygax says in the original DMG that DMG is not meant to simulate anything, if you take D&D as it was originally conceived (a team of heros having adventures) and try to use it to do something else (be a model of what a realistic high fantasy world would be like) then you'll end up with a game that's a whole lot of fun but that doesn't play to D&D strengths and there are games out there that are better for what you're looking for (Ars Magica etc).

So if its unrealistic for people with sharp bits of metal to be as useful as people who magic then who cares? It makes as much sense as heros who can walk away after jumping off cliffs or who can walk through blazing infernos and barely get singed if they don't have any magical protection. The capablilities of D&D fighters and thieves bear VERY little relation to what non-magical people can do in real life and thats why their sharp bits of metal should be very bit as good as the magic users spells.

Bosh
2007-12-06, 08:46 PM
Do you have examples of this from fiction or myth? preferably one where the warrior does it without falling back on luck.
Conan, Conan a thousand times Conan. And as for luck, what the hell do you think that high saving throws and triple-didget hit points are SUPPOSED to represent if not luck?

Jayabalard
2007-12-06, 09:12 PM
And there are two ways to do such a thing:
-Either magic comes at a great cost. So, you wanna fight like a fighter for an hour? Are you ready to sacrifice a finger, your liver, or your sanity?While consequence based magic systems can be really good, that's pretty far from what D&D's magic system has ever been .

As I recall the old TSR Conan game (not the newer D20 one) had a magic system was a bit clunky but had great flavor, where wizards sacrifice their humanity for power.


This is a blatant example of what I was criticizing: since you are not able to understand, you imply we are morons. So much for the relative friendliness of the discuss.QFT


A LEVEL 5 Fighter? LEVEL 5?!!?!/shrug google it if you want to see the arguments; I don't agree with them myself, but it's pretty widely held, and even if he's a few levels higher, he's a really bad example.


I'll concede that Beowulf is a high-level hero, he already had some renown by the time he duels Grendel, and must be epic-level when he finally dies: he is a benchmark for being an epic hero, you know!No, really just because he's in an epic poem doesn't mean that he equivelant to an epic level D&D character.

By the way, Grendel and his mother are both referred to with the adjective aglaeca, the same word used for Beowulf, which means "ferocious," "formidable," etc. meaning that they were not the simple CR1/2 Orcs.[/QUOTE]Granted, but nothing stops Grendel from being a CR 3 ogre either... That would certainly make it easier for a fairly low level fighter to kill him via unarmed attacks (ie, rip off his arm)

the bottom line is that nothing except for the abstractness of hp stops a fighter from being Beowulf... it's certainly more likely that a fighter can be Beowulf than a wizard can be Gandalf (especially since Gandalf is very poorly modeled using a D&D wizard)



1. If you want more powerful magic users just make them be higher level. How hard is that? Sheesh.Since this doesn't give you properly powered up magic users, it's not relevant.

A balanced system implies that high level spells can be matched by non magical people (otherwise it isn't balanced at the high end), which is not what I'm looking for in a high magic game.


So if its unrealistic for people with sharp bits of metal to be as useful as people who magic then who cares?I don't necessarily care about realism, but verisimilitude is very important to me. And people with sharp bits of metal who aren't using magic cannot equal someone who is using magic in a world where magic is plentiful and powerful without breaking verisimilitude; if someone is going to do supernatural things, they need to be using magic.


Conan, Conan a thousand times Conan. And as for luck, what the hell do you think that high saving throws and triple-didget hit points are SUPPOSED to represent if not luck?I can't recall any examples of Conan doing it by himself with no help, but there's lots of Conan stories; care to provide a more specific example?

As an aside, the magic in Conan is pretty far from high magic... which isn't to say that it was bad.

Matthew
2007-12-06, 09:17 PM
*stuff*

Round and round we go, where we stop, nobody knows...

Calibrating your expectations, I believe is a popular phrase on these boards, mainly taken from the article of the same name, you can read it here: Dungeons & Dragons - Calibrating Your Expectations (http://www.thealexandrian.net/creations/misc/d&d-calibrating.html).

A seach of these boards will no doubt turn up a Thread or three concerned with this subject and addressing many (if not all) of the above points.

Snooder
2007-12-06, 10:26 PM
I think one key question that needs to be asked is this: If I'm playing a fighter, or a monk, or a Paladin, or an , and some of the other players are going to be playing clerics and wizards, [i]will I still have fun? If the answer is yes, then I think that whining and moaning over balance is irrelevant. If the answer is no, then it's relevant.

One interesting thing that seems to have come out of this discussion, is that depending on the group/dm/campaign level, the answer can be either yes or no.

Exactly. You will have fun whether the system is balanced or not. Other people won't have fun if the system is unbalanced. It would seem therefore prudent to make the system balanced so we can all have fun.

I've played in games where I was weaker than the other players and had fun. I've also played in games where I was weaker than the other players and hated it. Since I tend to play the fighter in our group, I've mostly played in the latter sort of games. It's more common than you may think and it is extremely frustrating when it happens.


I am excluding those who prefer "imbalance" from all consideration because as should have been clear from this thread, it is much easier to create imbalance than it is to create balance. And frankly, no sensible rules system should be designed to favor unfairness. Sorry but D&D is partly a tactical combat game and should have rules that reflect this. If you wanna have an imbalanced game, why have levels or experience at all? Why have rules for how many spells players have, or how many feats they can learn? The basis of D&D's rules is balance. Nobody with any sense can argue otherwise. The problem is simply that the game designers made a few mistakes and frankly couldn't have predicted the effect of every rule, like Natural Spell or Divine Metamagic.

Nowhere Girl
2007-12-06, 10:36 PM
Conan, Conan a thousand times Conan. And as for luck, what the hell do you think that high saving throws and triple-didget hit points are SUPPOSED to represent if not luck?

Or this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jOauKDeh_Do&feature=related

This is what a high-level fighter in D&D should look like: someone who laughs at the laws of physics much the same as a wizard does (although not quite to the extent that a RAW wizard does, because nobody should do that, including wizards). That's because warriors in myth were always supposed to be like that. That's Conan. That's Beowulf. That's Hercules.

Snooder
2007-12-06, 10:41 PM
A balanced system implies that high level spells can be matched by non magical people (otherwise it isn't balanced at the high end), which is not what I'm looking for in a high magic game.

I don't necessarily care about realism, but verisimilitude is very important to me. And people with sharp bits of metal who aren't using magic cannot equal someone who is using magic in a world where magic is plentiful and powerful without breaking verisimilitude; if someone is going to do supernatural things, they need to be using magic.


Jay, you seem to advocate imbalance because you want a system where magic is more powerful than swordplay in order to reflect the idea of a high magic world. And that's ok. Unfortunately, you need to recalculate your ideas in terms of a level based system. Levels exist for a reason and are not independent of each other. The idea of a level system is that characters with the same level are roughly equivalent in power.

Let me put it this way, lets take a CR 15 dragon. The whole basis of the level system is that a level 15 fighter should be able to take on this dragon. Sure, realistically, no human can kill a flying 50 foot reptile with a sword. But he's supposed to, somehow, because that's what fantasy is about. And, his wizard colleague isn't supposed to be able to simply blow past the dragon without a sweat, a level 15 wizard is supposed to have roughly the same amount of trouble with the dragon as the fighter does. Sure, each monster has its own weaknesses and strengths, but on average this is how things are supposed to work.

So, even if magic is more powerful than swordsmanship, the individual characters at each level are supposed to be equal. A beginner fighter is as weak as a beginner wizard. A level 2 fighter is as capable of handling himself as a level 2 wizard and so on. Your idea of more powerful wizards is easily, and more appropriately, handled by changing the level variation. So, if you want a wizard who is vastly more powerful than his fighter cohorts, just make the wizard 2 or 3 levels above the fighter. This preserves the idea of the level system and makes it clear that the wizard is better.

Your problem may be that you are interpreting the level system in terms of the old 2e level system where experience and not level was the equalizer. In that system, a level 5 wizard WAS better than a level 5 fighter because he needed more experience to get to level 5.

Nowhere Girl
2007-12-06, 10:58 PM
Oh, and imagine how much more heroic, exciting, dramatic, and non-petty magic in D&D would look if it were more like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8L4amU6PII

(In this scene, the swordsman is possessed by and empowered by an extremely powerful evil god, as well as wielding an artifact-equivalent sword, on top of being on his own natural ability possibly the greatest swordsman in his world ... without all of this combined, he wouldn't have dominated the fight so. The spellcasters are all epic or near-epic. Notice that none of them has anything broken, like Celerity/Time Stop, and the fight is cinematic and actually makes them look heroic while tossing spells.)

Mando Knight
2007-12-06, 11:03 PM
Calibrating your expectations, I believe is a popular phrase on these boards, mainly taken from the article of the same name, you can read it here: Dungeons & Dragons - Calibrating Your Expectations (http://www.thealexandrian.net/creations/misc/d&d-calibrating.html).

A seach of these boards will no doubt turn up a Thread or three concerned with this subject and addressing many (if not all) of the above points.

Hm. Interesting. I was kind of basing my levels for Aragorn off of those of Luke Skywalker (Episode VI) given in the SWSE rulebook, assuming that the levels in each were roughly equal... I'm probably wrong about that, so then my assumptions are wrong right off of the bat...
Is "epic level" in D&D... deity level? I mean, if the King of the West is only a level 5...


/shrug google it if you want to see the arguments; I don't agree with them myself, but it's pretty widely held, and even if he's a few levels higher, he's a really bad example.


All of the articles and forums that I looked at said that he was primarily a Ranger/Paladin, possibly a Ranger/Fighter/Paladin, and other than the Level 5 estimate, were in the ballpark for the Ranger 5/Paladin 5 that I came up with... though they were more skewed towards Ranger than mine...


Gandalf was pretty pathetic in D&D terms. He never really did anything that couldn't be replicated by a level 0 spell (or 1 in a special case).

Uh, huh.:smallconfused: And Gandalf says himself:

Dangerous! And so am I, very dangerous: more dangerous than anything you will ever meet, unless you are brought alive before the seat of the Dark Lord.
Furthermore, Tolkien has written in Unfinished Tales that Gandalf is in fact a Maia, one of the demigods/angels of Middle-earth--the same class as Sauron. If Gandalf is so weak, then so must be everyone on his power level... Sauron, the campaign's BBEG, included. Also, he defeats a Balrog single-handedly, which, in Middle-earth, and as revealed in The Silmarillion, are Maiar... demigods (or angels).

And that thing about the Witch King breaking Gandalf's staff? Peter Jackson made that up. (Or if you're picky, his writers might have...)

I don't know how his shown magical prowess compares to that of a D&D wizard, but I know that he did have a Ring of Power... and he may not have wished to use his powers to their full extent... that can attract some unwanted attention from the guy you've been sent to covertly destroy... especially if he has spies everywhere...

Also, I've read that the characters in OOTS are assumed to be mid-level (I'm taking that to be ~4-11...), and our good friend :roy: doesn't seem to be any more powerful than Aragorn... while Roy was still alive, of course...

streakster
2007-12-06, 11:07 PM
@Title of thread: You fall off if you don't! [/rimshot]

tyckspoon
2007-12-06, 11:23 PM
Also, I've read that the characters in OOTS are assumed to be mid-level (I'm taking that to be ~4-11...), and our good friend doesn't seem to be any more powerful than Aragorn... while Roy was still alive, of course...

They're level 13, according to the last reliable indicators we've had in the comic. And I would say Roy is more powerful than Aragorn.. he doesn't have the power of plot or a Hidden Kingly Destiny backing him up like Aragorn, but he is personally stronger. Aragorn wouldn't want to go one-on-one with a troll; Roy would Power Attack its head off (yes, I recognize that you cannot actually draw an equivalency between a D&D troll and a Tolkien troll.) Aragorn would be in some trouble if he were surrounded by orcs (not too much, but it's still a bad situation for him.) Roy can cut his way through almost any arbitrary number of orcs up until they get out the bows and cut him down through weight of math. The big difference is that D&D heroes are expected to stand up to the monsters, while Tolkien's heroes are mostly expected to run from them.


I don't know how his shown magical prowess compares to that of a D&D wizard, but I know that he did have a Ring of Power... and he may not have wished to use his powers to their full extent... that can attract some unwanted attention from the guy you've been sent to covertly destroy... especially if he has spies everywhere...

Gandalf's displayed magic compares very poorly to a D&D wizard. Most of what this demonstrates is that D&D cannot model Tolkien very well any more, if it ever could. It is undeniable that Gandalf could, in extremity, call upon much more power than he did onscreen/page, but he generally didn't use it. The result is that, for being one of the archetypal Wizards of fantasy, Gandalf looks a lot more like an Outsider (Full BAB, martial weapon use.. he may well be the reason Outsiders get those things) and/or a martial class with some spell-like abilities.

Mando Knight
2007-12-06, 11:24 PM
@Title of thread: You fall off if you don't! [/rimshot]

LOL.

...a lot of my posts here are really off the topic...

Nowhere Girl... I heartily agree with you. High-level swordsmen (or macemen... or whatever...) should be able to break the laws of physics just as much as same-level Wizards... just with their shiny pieces of metal instead of their minds.

streakster
2007-12-06, 11:30 PM
Aye, I agree on the law of physics breaking meself. That be why I be heartily recommending der ToB. I reckon we could hold that battle Nowhere Girl showed easy, with that. That finisher was an Utterdark Eldritch Glaive if I ever seen one..

Which I ain't...

Off-topic again, is the rest of that Slayers series any good?

Woot Spitum
2007-12-06, 11:38 PM
Let me put it this way, lets take a CR 15 dragon. The whole basis of the level system is that a level 15 fighter should be able to take on this dragon. Sure, realistically, no human can kill a flying 50 foot reptile with a sword. But he's supposed to, somehow, because that's what fantasy is about. And, his wizard colleague isn't supposed to be able to simply blow past the dragon without a sweat, a level 15 wizard is supposed to have roughly the same amount of trouble with the dragon as the fighter does. Sure, each monster has its own weaknesses and strengths, but on average this is how things are supposed to work.This is not true. A 15th level encounter is balanced for a level 15 party consisting of a two-handed weapon using fighter, a sneak attacking rogue, a healing and buffing cleric, and a blaster wizard. A CR 15 dragon should be able to kill any one of those characters alone a majority of the time.

Starbuck_II
2007-12-06, 11:42 PM
Gandalf was pretty pathetic in D&D terms. He never really did anything that couldn't be replicated by a level 0 spell (or 1 in a special case).


Since when was Lightning Bolt (in the books he used it, Hobbit) a 1st level spell i? And remember that Daylight effect if the movies versus the Wraiths in the sky.

tyckspoon
2007-12-06, 11:47 PM
This is not true. A 15th level encounter is balanced for a level 15 party consisting of a two-handed weapon using fighter, a sneak attacking rogue, a healing and buffing cleric, and a blaster wizard. A CR 15 dragon should be able to kill any one of those characters alone a majority of the time.

An equal CR encounter should take 20 to 25% of the resources of a party of four. It follows that an equal CR encounter for a lone adventurer should take 80-100% of his resources. Death is possible, but not necessarily probable; a single adventurer against a single equal CR monster should have a decent chance of winning. Of course, the CR system does not properly account for a great many things, so it's not a very good guideline in the end..

And dragons are known to be significantly under-CR'd, so it is in fact probable that a dragon will eat a lone adventurer of the same level. That's not an inherent aspect of the CR system, tho, just a decision on the part of the designers to make dragons excessively tough for the 'recommended' level.

Skjaldbakka
2007-12-06, 11:51 PM
A balanced system is simply narratively weaker, because it is balanced.

If you dont care about balance, there is no reason for everyone to be the same level. A balanced system can be easily made unbalanced by introducing a range of levels. Which is enough to counter the "narrative weakness" that you claim is inherent to a balanced system (but which you haven't shown is there". You statement is the very picture of a circular argument.


A is B, because A is A. There is no argument there. Just a claim that A = B


Also, if you favor storytelling so much over game balance, there are much better systems. Check out BESM (which is only as balanced as you allow it to be), and WoD. For fantasy D10, check out Exalted. Those systems all focus more on the storytelling than on making claims to 'balance'.

Nowhere Girl
2007-12-06, 11:54 PM
Aye, I agree on the law of physics breaking meself. That be why I be heartily recommending der ToB. I reckon we could hold that battle Nowhere Girl showed easy, with that. That finisher was an Utterdark Eldritch Glaive if I ever seen one..

Which I ain't...

Off-topic again, is the rest of that Slayers series any good?

I think it is. I'm a huge Slayers fan. :smalltongue:

Bosh
2007-12-06, 11:58 PM
I think that this thread is an excellent example of why, if you strip away Ron Edward's arrogance and biases, the GNS (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/3/) model makes a whole lot of sense.

Although hybrids are often a lot of fun, there are basically three different ways to go about designing a game:

Gamist (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/21/): The rules are focused on balance and tactical/strategic interest and gameplay is based on the characters overcoming challenges of appropriate difficulty. While overcoming these challenges the cleverness of the players (not just the power of the characters) often plays a significant role. Gamist rules often contain a lot of tactical options to make overcoming the challenges more interesting (but can be very rules light like Old D&D). A good example of Gamist game design is the whole challenge rating/experience system in 3ed.

Narratavist (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/_articles/narr_essay.html): Narrativist game design doesn't care about balance or what makes sense (they tend to hand wave away all kinds of things) so much as what makes an interesting story. Narratavist games tend to be heavy on personality and/or metagame mechanics and often have a specific narrative structure built into the rules. They range from very rules light (like The Pool (http://zork.net/~nick/loyhargil/thepool.html)) but can get a bit crunchy like the Fate/luck/artha mechanics in games like Spirit of the Century and Burning Wheel. In Narratavist games what often matters the most when determining an outcome is how much the characters care about what the outcome is.

Simulationist (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/15/): The rules are based on verisimilitude and try to either model reality or specific genre conventions. Simulationist rules are based around what makes the most sense. For example under Simulationist rules you don't get better at embroidery by killing orcs, you get better at embroidery by doing a lot of embroidery because it doesn't make any *sense* for the slaughter of orcs to make you better at needlework. Simulationist rules tend to be pretty heavy (often because of a focus on nitty gritty stuff that other games handwave away) but are not always, for example a Simulationist game that focuses more on having a setting that's oozing with verisimilitude can be quite rules-light.

Of course a lot of people take one game and play it in a bit of a different way (Drift (http://www.darkshire.net/~jhkim/rpg/theory/glossary/alphabetical/D.html)) and, like I said hybrid are cool, but if you mash together different approaches towards game design without a lot of care or try to play a set of rules in a style that's very different than what the rules are built for then you can get problems and incoherence (http://www.darkshire.net/~jhkim/rpg/theory/glossary/alphabetical/I.html).

Now fundamentally D&D is a solidly Gamist game. Like I said the CR/experience system is PURE Gamist, same goes for the vast majority of modules and a thousand little things (why does shooting a gun take a feat but shooting a bow doesn't when in real life its MUCH harder to learn how to shoot a bow? Because guns are more powerful, pure Gamism).

There are some Simulationist elements in D&D (probably the most in AD&D 1st ed with some in 2nd and 3rd and very little in Old D&D and (apparently) 4ed) but most of them are minor stuff, flavor or mostly apparent in the setting. Some of the clearest examples of Simulationism in the old editions are the clunkier bits that most everyone house ruled away since they didn't fit with the Gamist core of the game.

Similarly the only really Narratavist bit of D&D is the alignment system and that is often fairly ill-fitting as well (just look at how many alignment flame wars happen and how many people ignore it in play). Happily OD&D and (apparently) 4ed de-emphasize alignment.

So having things "make sense" (Simulationist) and be dramatically appropriate (Narratavist) are good things and can work well in D&D as long as they don't conflict with the Gamist core of D&D. For example, the niche protection system is a great example of intelligent Gamist design and anything that disrupts that (clerics that can fight better than fighters, druids that can scout better than thieves, etc.) isn't good for D&D. Sames goes for the CR system, if some classes are more powerful than other on a fundamental level the whole thing breaks down.

Of course you CAN play D&D from a fundamentally Narratavist or Simulationist perspective. I ran a realistic Renaissance Venice campaign with D&D rules that was a lot of fun (but which would have been more fun with a more appropriate set of rules) But why would you want to? There are other games out there that do it better and you'd have a whole bunch of rules that'd be contanstly working against you.

Saying that what "makes sense" should trump things at the core of D&D design like niche protection and challenge-based gaming makes about as much sense as making the car move 3d6 instead of 2d6 in Monopoly because cars are faster than dogs or complaining that Monopoly doesn't have enough verisimilitude to model a real estate market.

SmartAlec
2007-12-07, 12:10 AM
You'd have a whole bunch of rules that'd be contanstly working against you.

That is essentially the point I tried to make on the first page of the thread.

If you have fun playing D&D, that's great.

If you're having fun and the rules support you having fun, that's also great.

If you're having fun, but you're having fun despite the rules, then really that's bad, even though you're having fun.

Even if you bring in other things from other books to have fun, that's still bad. The core system should be enough. It should be enough to guarantee everyone has a chance of a good time, no matter the level of the players, without the players or the DM having to fudge things.

The rest is up to them, the characterisation and the storytelling and the rest. But the point is; they shouldn't have to worry about the rules excluding or punishing anyone. The goal should be to have things reach the point where as many people as possible are having fun, that is to some extent because of the game, not in spite of it.

Bosh
2007-12-07, 12:14 AM
The main objection I have is that D&D is not upfront about it, the difference is too large, and spell lists have been made so versitle that casters can fulfill any party role. There shouldn't be spells that let casters do what fighters can do, ie hit things really hard with an axe. However, it doesn't really bother me if in a one on one fight a wizard can turn a fighter into a pile of ash with little tado. It's a team game afterall and you are not competing against the other players.

Right, whether one class is better than another at one on one duels is irrelevant. What IS relevant is if a party of a cleric, a druid and two wizards is FAR FAR FAR better at overcoming the sort of challenges that usually crop up in D&D games than a part of 1 fighter, 1 cleric, 1 magic user and 1 thief.

Dausuul
2007-12-07, 12:34 AM
Okay. Definition time.

First, what is the definition of "high-magic world?"

I see two main possibilities. #1, "high-magic world" is defined as "world where wizards are super-powerful." #2, "high-magic world" is defined as "world with a lot of magic in it."

If we're going with definition #1, then you cannot argue that wizards ought to be super-powerful because it's a high-magic world; that's saying that wizards ought to be super-powerful because wizards are super-powerful, which is circular logic.

If we're going with definition #2, then it does not logically follow that because the world is full of magic, wizards must be super-powerful. It is entirely possible to have a world that's bursting with magic but in which wizards' ability to wield that magic is very limited.

Either way, "D&D is set in a high-magic world" is insufficient justification for why wizards ought to reign supreme.

Second, and more importantly, definitions of "balance."

IMO, a "balanced system" is one in which no one character option (be it a feat, class, magic item, or whatever) is clearly superior to another in a mechanical sense; that is, from an optimizer's point of view and disregarding fluff, there is a valid reason to pick any given option, and this remains the case across the entire level range.

So, for instance, let's imagine an extremely simplified D&D involving four classes. The fighter is best at winning an encounter with a single strong creature. The wizard is best at winning an encounter with many weak creatures. The cleric is best at healing and supporting other party members. And the rogue is best at scouting and disarming traps.

If all of these tasks are required on a regular basis, this is a balanced system. For an optimizer whose goal is to beat single strong creatures, the fighter is the best pick. For an optimizer whose goal is to beat lots of weak creatures, the wizard is the best pick, and so on.

We can even add a fifth class, the bard. The bard is second-best at everything. At each of the four tasks, he is not as good as the specialist but better than the other three. This is still a balanced system. An optimizer who wants to be good in every situation would logically pick the bard.

Now, if there's a level at which the cleric becomes able to win a single-strong-creature encounter more effectively than the fighter, while being as good or better at the other tasks too--then the system is not balanced past that level, because there is no longer a valid mechanical reason to play a fighter. Likewise, if the system is designed so that trapfinding and stealth are virtually never needed, that too is imbalanced because there is no longer a valid mechanical reason to play a rogue.

Of course, D&D is far more complicated than that, and it's virtually impossible to evaluate the relative effectiveness of a given class across all situations, especially considering the interaction of feats, classes, races, and so forth. However, one can look at how each class performs in general, and make an estimate. At high levels, the fighter requires extremely specific circumstances to outperform a caster at any task. If the DM does not deliberately intervene to bring them about*, are those circumstances common enough to justify an optimizer's playing a fighter? Probably not. So the system is unbalanced at high levels, and either casters are too strong or fighters too weak (or both).

*DM intervention is not a valid consideration where questions of balance are concerned, because what the DM does or does not do is outside the scope of the rules. Individual DMs may succeed in fixing these issues at their own gaming tables, but that doesn't fix the system as a whole. The system should assume a "strict-constructionist" DM, that is, one who will play by the rules as written except when doing so would be clearly absurd, and who will not attempt to correct perceived balance problems.

Third, the questions:

Does anyone disagree with this definition of "balance?"

If so, what definition would you prefer?

Does anyone believe that "balance," as defined above, is actually a bad thing?

If so, what specific aspects of an unbalanced system do you consider good? (Please include details--that is, if what you like is how the unbalanced system lets you achieve the "feel" of a fantasy novel, what "feel" are you talking about, how does the unbalanced system achieve it, and why could it not be achieved by a balanced system?)

Woot Spitum
2007-12-07, 12:45 AM
So, for instance, let's imagine an extremely simplified D&D involving four classes. The fighter is best at killing a single strong creature. The wizard is best at killing large numbers of weak creatures.Theoretically, yes, but in practice the wizard, with incredible powers that are quickly exhausted, is best suited for dealing with single, strong foes while the fighter, with lesser abilities that never run out, is best suited for dealing with large numbers of weaker creatures. This becomes especially true at higher levels.

Dausuul
2007-12-07, 12:47 AM
Theoretically, yes, but in practice the wizard, with incredible powers that are quickly exhausted, is best suited for dealing with single, strong foes while the fighter, with lesser abilities that never run out, is best suited for dealing with large numbers of weaker creatures. This becomes especially true at higher levels.

This was a hypothetical system for the sake of argument, not actual D&D.

horseboy
2007-12-07, 01:07 AM
:smallconfused:
Is that sarcasm?

Nope. It's one of the core problems in D&D. A sword stops being an effective save or die (of sorts) around level 3 or 4. If you take the mandatory option of Power Attack you can push that up further. Meanwhile wizards have save or dies their whole carrier through. One of the reasons why wizards are so much more effective than fighters.

Zincorium
2007-12-07, 01:09 AM
Here's my thing:

Magic can tell the laws of physics to sit down and shut up, but...

Does it have to be easy? I think the problem is that people realize magic can do anything, and then let wizards actually do all those things. Like stop time, win initiative automatically, and so on.

There's really no reason to assume that it's possible for the PC's to get to the higher level magics. Dragons with 900 years of study under their belt? Pretty reasonable. A human wizard who has yet to see 30? It's easy to justify a shortcoming in comparison.

Honestly, I prefer using the more specialized casters like warmages, beguilers, and dread necromancers because of the focus they have. There is no "I change out my entire field of knowledge in 8 hours". You know a certain area of magic, and that's what you cast. Simple.

Incidentally, it also gets rid of vancian casting, which honestly I'd rather not see outside the novel's of Jack Vance. IMHO, it works poorly compared to the alternatives.

Mando Knight
2007-12-07, 01:12 AM
Nope. It's one of the core problems in D&D. A sword stops being an effective save or die (of sorts) around level 3 or 4.

That's one thing that's useful in SWSE: weapon damage scales with level, so everyone can deal death at mid-high levels... but I haven't played all that much of SE, so I can't judge whether it's an appropriate scale...

Jayabalard
2007-12-07, 01:41 AM
There's really no reason to assume that it's possible for the PC's to get to the higher level magics. Dragons with 900 years of study under their belt? Pretty reasonable. A human wizard who has yet to see 30? It's easy to justify a shortcoming in comparison.Then ban those from your games; that sounds like a really easy fix to me.

it's certainly easier to restrict them (take an unbalanced system and add the level of balance that you want) than it is to write them all from scratch (take a balanced system and add power to the spellcasters to make it unbalanced like D&D currently is).


This is what a high-level fighter in D&D should look like: someone who laughs at the laws of physics much the same as a wizard does (although not quite to the extent that a RAW wizard does, because nobody should do that, including wizards). I disagree 100% That is precisely what I don't want in my game. The only people who should be able to laugh at the laws of physics are the ones using magic.

if you're not using magic, sorry, you stuck being more mundane.


That's because warriors in myth were always supposed to be like that. That's Conan.I don't recall Conan ever laughing at the laws of physics like Mihawk does. Not even a little bit. Conan is far to much of a gritty and "real" barbarian warrior for that sort of nonsense.


That's Beowulf.Sure, Beowulf is larger than life. He never slashes at the air and creates a lightning bolt. He never slices through a spell. He's a good one to model fighters on... and since his level of power is attainable for a D&D fighter, I don't see a problem.


That's Hercules.Hercules was a demigod... are you advocating that the characters should be wizards and demigods and not allow someone to play a normal heroic fighter like Conan? If not, I don't think that he's relevant to the discussion.


Oh, and imagine how much more heroic, exciting, dramatic, and non-petty magic in D&D would look if it were more like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8L4amU6PII

(In this scene, the swordsman is possessed by and empowered by an extremely powerful evil god, as well as wielding an artifact-equivalent sword, on top of being on his own natural ability possibly the greatest swordsman in his world ... without all of this combined, he wouldn't have dominated the fight so. The spellcasters are all epic or near-epic. Notice that none of them has anything broken, like Celerity/Time Stop, and the fight is cinematic and actually makes them look heroic while tossing spells.)meh

I hope that the default game for D&D never becomes anything like that.


Jay, you seem to advocate imbalance because you want a system where magic is more powerful than swordplay in order to reflect the idea of a high magic world.Thanks for explaining, but none of this is news to me.


So, if you want a wizard who is vastly more powerful than his fighter cohorts, just make the wizard 2 or 3 levels above the fighter. This preserves the idea of the level system and makes it clear that the wizard is better.If you take a balanced system where wizard level x = fighter level x, and add y to the wizard's level then there exists a fighter who is as powerful as that wizard (it happens to be level x+y), no matter how high of level the wizard is.

In an unbalanced system, you can have the situation where a wizard cannot be matched by a fighter, regardless of the fighter's level, because you can include abilities that cannot be balanced against. Magic can give options that cannot be defended against without magic and defense that cannot be broken without magic.

The latter situation is the reason that I play D&D. It cannot exist in a balanced system; you can't create it by making a trivial change to a balanced system; changing a balanced system to create that is as difficult a change as making an unbalanced system balanced.


If we're going with definition #1, then you cannot argue that wizards ought to be super-powerful because it's a high-magic world; that's saying that wizards ought to be super-powerful because wizards are super-powerful, which is circular logic.Actually, what you've mentioned is just a claim of truth by definition; it's only circular if you use the following argument:

Assume that the world is a high magic world, using definition #1 above
The world has super powerful wizards because of step #1
Because there are super powerful wizards as shown in step #2, the world is a high magic world.

which noone is using.


Does anyone disagree with this definition of "balance?"It's a fine definition as far as I'm concerned, but in general I find that people want to define it differently.


Does anyone believe that "balance," as defined above, is actually a bad thing? Yes


If so, what specific aspects of an unbalanced system do you consider good? (Please include details--that is, if what you like is how the unbalanced system lets you achieve the "feel" of a fantasy novel, what "feel" are you talking about, how does the unbalanced system achieve it, and why could it not be achieved by a balanced system?)When I choose to play an unbalanced system, I'm doing so because


I want to be like being able to chose from options that different returns in power, multiple options that I can choose that will make my character weaker or stronger than another.
I like high level magic to be unmatchable without magic; not just stronger.... unmatchable. I don't want them to start off that way, I just want magic users to rapidly outpace their non magical brethren by larger and larger degrees until the magic users cannot be matched by a someone who doesn't use magic.


I'll think on it some more to see if I can be clearer, but it's kind of late; perhaps tomorrow when I'm less tired

Serenity
2007-12-07, 01:51 AM
Multiple people have mentioned things that they like out of unbalanced systems.

There have also been a few people who mentioned why it's not the easy fix that people keep assuming to make a balanced system into a good unbalanced one.

And yet you don't reiterate or try to better explain the points. You just insult me. I've seen categorical statements that balance is bad, but never any extensive explanation of how it hurts you or why you can't achieve the same effect by starting at different levels.


It's the "high magic" part. In a high magic world, magic, and the people who use it, are far more powerful than the people who don't.

That is simply absurd. A high magic world is a world in which there is a lot of magic. If we accept your definition of high-magic world, than your statement that 'wizards should be super-powerful because D&D supposes a high-magic world' becomes 'wizards should be super-powerful because D&D supposes wizards being super-powerful', which is a meaningless, circular argument.


I don't really follow Buffy, but I wouldn't rate the Buffyverse as "high magic" and, as I recall, most of the "fighter types" are more than a tad supernatural, so they're not really comparable to D&D's Fighters... both of which explain why the "fighter types" aren't outshone.

It only doesn't qualify for high-magic by your absurdly narrow definition of high magic. It's a world where spells, supernatural monsters, and artifacts of legend all run rampant. As for the supernatural aspects of the main fighters? The absolute extent of it is that they hit things really, really hard. And the Commando character isn't even superhuman at all; the closest he gets is a steroid boost. In short, under any reasonable definition of high-magic world, there is no inherent reason whatsoever that casters should be superpowerful.

EDIT: It seems you have posted an actually good explanation of what you want while I was posting this. I can't pretend to like or agree with your style of play, but I suppose I owe you an apology for implying you were trying to avoid the question.

Now, I certainly believe that magic should provide options that you need magic to defend against. D&D is a game based around teamwork, after all. But by the same token, there should be options that fighters have that casters don't--and these should be effective options. When there is very rarely if any reason not to turn to the wizard's spells rather than the fighter's steel, that is when I have a problem, and that is what the current unbalance seems like to me.

AKA_Bait
2007-12-07, 01:58 AM
Well, no, because I wasn't even directing that at you.

What does that have to do with anything? Everyone who is on this board has an obligation to be civil. Implying someone is a moron for not agreeing with you isn't exactly civil.



I do get impatient after a while, yes. It's the same impatience I would exhibit if someone stubbornly insisted, against all available evidence to the contrary, that 2+2=5. Unless we're in the Ministry of Love, and I'm at the mercy of O'Brien, I'm just not going to agree to that or even respect it.

I really hope you don't mean this as strongly as you put it here. This is not a case of 2+5=5 or even close. It's a case of if you would prefer you system be balanced class against class or not. Just because a majority think one thing doesn't make it as clear cut or objective as mathematics. I like pistacio icedcream, most people don't, that doesn't make my preference absurd.


Or this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jOauKDeh_Do&feature=related

This is what a high-level fighter in D&D should look like: someone who laughs at the laws of physics much the same as a wizard does (although not quite to the extent that a RAW wizard does, because nobody should do that, including wizards). That's because warriors in myth were always supposed to be like that. That's Conan. That's Beowulf. That's Hercules.

See, I for one totally disagree with that notion. Fighters don't laugh at the laws of phyiscs, they just take the limits of what is normally considered humanly possible and push them into heroic areas. Running up a wall or tearing Grendels arm off are all physically possible even without getting into wacky theoretical stuff. Creating fire from nothing isn't.

Also, Hercules is a bad example. Hercules was not just a fighter. He was, at least, divine rank 1.


Unfortunately, you need to recalculate your ideas in terms of a level based system. Levels exist for a reason and are not independent of each other. The idea of a level system is that characters with the same level are roughly equivalent in power.

I don't think that's inherently the case as you reference to 2e stuff indicated. The issue really is, do you want a class, say spell casters writ large, to be inherently better at some levels than other classes. Do you want a system where a level 20 fighter will almost never be able to take out a level 20 Wizard, even though they are both at their pre-epic power cap? It really is just a matter of preference. For 3.5 the answer really is more of a 'yes'. If you'd prefer no Iron Heroes is a good alternative.


This is not true. A 15th level encounter is balanced for a level 15 party consisting of a two-handed weapon using fighter, a sneak attacking rogue, a healing and buffing cleric, and a blaster wizard. A CR 15 dragon should be able to kill any one of those characters alone a majority of the time.

Or at least make it a very, very difficult enounter for them using up pretty much 100% of their daily resources and then some. Also, as a note, the system taken as they originally playtested it is pretty close to being balanced in that regard. It's just that they didn't do enough playtesting.



Does anyone disagree with this definition of "balance?"


You left resource use out of your example system. If the system is set up such that at high levels a cleric could out fighter the fighter, but only rarely (say using a rare or expensive material component in the spell) you can still have a mechanically balanced system.


If so, what definition would you prefer?

One where 'most of the time' is part of the equation. Optimzation for each class should be to be the best at a particular thing most of the time, rather than all the time.


If so, what specific aspects of an unbalanced system do you consider good? (Please include details--that is, if what you like is how the unbalanced system lets you achieve the "feel" of a fantasy novel, what "feel" are you talking about, how does the unbalanced system achieve it, and why could it not be achieved by a balanced system?)[/b]

If you want a system that does make some classes inherently better optimized than others. If a setting where Wizards are just more powerful than everyone else, but a rare and terrifying thing in the world, than unbalanced mechanics would make things easier in terms of designing the mechanical aspects characters. That's really all it is. What way makes it easier to get the kind of game you want.

Asking, as you did above, for specifics of a system to provide the feel you want is pointless in the end and really, would take the development of several new systems by people just to respond to, not to mention long descriptions of what they want their world to be thematically like.