Can we build the math from the ground up? (And does Vancian help or hurt that?)

[Man_Over_Game]

So suppose - say, for 6th edition - people wanted to build the game from the ground up, build the math from the ground up to make all D&D classes "balanced", by which I mean "able to contribute, and occasionally shine", and no more "linear Fighter, quadratic Wizard".

So, let's take… "6th level". The wizard has Fireball, SoL spells like Hold Person, buffs, BFC.

Fighting an army of orcs, Fireball is probably optimal. How many orcs should take how long to dispatch the Wizard? How many orcs should the Wizard have killed before that happens? How can the Fighter contribute "equally"? By killing orcs roughly as quickly? By surviving to finish off the orc army one at a time? By leading their own army?

Fighting a few Ogres, BFC is likely the best option, perhaps followed up with some summons. How can the Fighter contribute "equally"? By greatly outpacing the summons' DPS (perhaps with their own "scales by round" mechanic, like "automatic study: add a d6 of damage to every attack for every consecutive round the Fighter has made an attack on this creature type" or something)? By being their own BFC (3e chain tripper says hi)? By leading their own army?

Fighting a Troll, SoL may be the best bet for the Wizard. If it works, the Wizard gets to shine; if not, they didn't contribute. How do we make the Fighter "balanced" here?

Talking to people, the Wizard has effects like Charm and ESP. Which… have negative reproductions, and, in earlier editions, can drive the Wizard bonkers. How do we make the Fighter "balanced" here?

Dealing with traps, the Wizard could use summons (and scrying for maximum safety). How do we make the Fighter "balanced" here?

And, of course, all this was only considering Schrödinger's Wizard with unlimited spells. Should we keep the Wizard that way? How do we balance those encounters of the Wizard only packed Detect Magic, Alarm, Invisibility, and Sending? How do we make the Fighter "balanced" here?

Also, what if, rather than the microscope of "a single challenge", we look at a larger scenario, like "rescue the Dragon from the evil princess", or "close an underwater extradimensional portal protected by invisible, incorporeal guardians", or "save the NPC writer with massive gambling debts from loan sharks"? What should each class bring to the table in each of these scenarios, and how do we make that "balanced"?

Few issues:

• Balancing things based off different levels of dependency on resources doesn't generally work, as each table is going to have different numbers of enemies per encounter per day (unless you can find a way to make those numbers rigid).
• You don't need to start with the ground up. Compare your vision for both at the top. See where one needs more juice. Give it that juice, or scale the other side down.
• Combat isn't the only metric, unless it's the only way to solve your problems. Treat Combat and Non-Combat as two separate modes of play, and make it so you only ever have to compare Apples-to-Apples and Oranges-to-Oranges.
  • Don't put yourself in a situation where you're comparing the Fighter's weapon-enhancing feature to the Bard's social manipulation feature, because they don't even vaguely compete or solve the same problems. Never be in a position where someone has to spend a feature on either a combat power OR a Roleplaying power, by either granting everyone equal numbers of both (utility feats and combat feats), or making each feature have an aspect of both (the Manipulator feat gives both a utility and a combat power). In other words, a Fighter should have just as many Roleplaying Powers as the Bard, and the Bard should have just as many Combat Powers as the Fighter, or what you're looking for isn't 'balance'. This is because there is no real way of enforcing the base value of either Combat or Roleplaying on any table, or even in an encounter. It'd be like trying to get everyone to use the Metric system while everyone wants to use different weights.

You don't need a whole bunch of math and work. You just gotta check yourself before you wreck yourself. It's the design plan, the foundation that matters, not the math. As long as you're aware of the goals in mind, you'll hit them.

4th Edition actually had the foundation for a perfectly balanced game. It screwed up in a lot of ways (even in regards to balance, mostly due to dumb number problems), but it had the foundation that could have been perfect (by giving everyone roughly the same amount of utility, encounter vs. daily resources, etc).
Was it bland? Sure! But just because 4e was 1-dimensional doesn't mean that a better solution has to be too.