I think this is the crux of the Pro-4e power balance argument though. In both systems you want a balanced party, especially at earlier levels, but at higher and higher levels in 3.5 a Wizard is a required element. While a Wizard is often helpful in 4e, his role can be suplemented by one of the other controller classes fairly easily. I think the part that I like most about 4e is that the new structure of roles in the party (Striker, Defender, Controller, Leader) has shifted the emphasis away from balancing the party with specific classes and towards these general roles, making no one class actually required for play.

4e's class balance isn't all it's cracked up to be.

Kaoswzrd wrote:

I think this is the crux of the Pro-4e power balance argument though. In both systems you want a balanced party, especially at earlier levels, but at higher and higher levels in 3.5 a Wizard is a required element. While a Wizard is often helpful in 4e, his role can be suplemented by one of the other controller classes fairly easily. I think the part that I like most about 4e is that the new structure of roles in the party (Striker, Defender, Controller, Leader) has shifted the emphasis away from balancing the party with specific classes and towards these general roles, making no one class actually required for play.

In theory, anyway. In practice, there are strikers (most strikers and some controllers), bad strikers (the rest of the strikers, the rest of the controllers, pretty much all of the defenders), stunlockers (some controllers), and healers.

4e's class balance isn't all it's cracked up to be.

Striker, Controller, Defender, Leader are now "classes" and under each you have many sub-classes (what we call classes). 4e says a balanced party has one of each "class".

S.

In theory, anyway. In practice, there are strikers (most strikers and some controllers), bad strikers (the rest of the strikers, the rest of the controllers, pretty much all of the defenders), stunlockers (some controllers), and healers.

4e's class balance isn't all it's cracked up to be.

I understand your point but what happens for all of the combats where these spells fail to work because someone made a save?

The answer, of course, is that the wizard will win it in the next round, when he recasts the spell.

Scott Betts wrote:

You have a valid point if the discussion is on a sorcerer. Most wizards are not going to memorize hold person 8 times in hopes you fail to save once.

Talek & Luna wrote:

What happens when it is only a round delay because the creature makes a save on a subsequent round?

My point is that a hold person spell is a significant resource. If you get a save vs the effect every round as in the spell description, it becomes less valuable since odds are the held monster will break out of the spell pretty quickly.

Talek & Luna wrote:

Take a decent wisdom score. Take Iron Will and Improved Iron Will. Buy a cloak fo resistance. There are many ways to overcome poor will saves.

Scott Betts wrote:

Yes, so very many ways that your typical D&D monster just doesn't use.

What is wrong with that? Most monster have great fortitude saves and decent reflex saves. Should they have no weak spots for casters? Should all monsters have high AC's so that fighters have a hard time attacking them? I don't see your logic in this.

Talek & Luna wrote:

The first level protection from evil spell makes charm person/charm monster and dominate person all pointless until the protection wears off.

Which we don't need, because blinding works, too. If we really want a charm spell to go off, a quick dispel will drop that protection from evil.

Scott Betts wrote:

And really, what you're saying here is "Spellcasters aren't all that great because they can be foiled by protection from evil, which is something a spellcaster casts!"

Do you see the trouble with that sort of reasoning?
No I don't see the trouble. My earlier post refers to many ways to avoid mental control. Most of which are magical. Just as your best ways to survive physical combat is by taking physical protection, your best chance to survive magical combat may be by taking magical defenses. How is that so hard to understand?

Talek & Luna wrote:

Play an elf or a half-elf and suddnely sleep is a non-factor or play a dwarf for the save bonus vs magic.

Scott Betts wrote:

We're talking about monsters here, not player-on-player combat. Obviously, if you're a wizard going up against a bunch of elves, Sleep isn't going to be cast. Sleep is also not used past level 4 or so, since it has a hit die cap, and we've already made it clear that wizards have to be coddled through the first four levels by the rest of the party so that they can eventually eclipse everyone who isn't a spellcaster by level 7.

So you are upset that I can help the party defeat monsters with magic? I am sorry you feel this way. Why do you even bother to play the game? It is a team effort. I can't possibly cast every spell and win every battle by myself. It is impossible. You always need the other members of your group. Try and play a party of casters and you will most likely die unless the DM really tailor's the game to your party and even then it won't be much fun. You will always need at least one or more martial characters in the party. I don't understand what you mean by coddling. Do you really want me in the front lines with my AC of 12 swinging my quarterstaff with a mighty +0 to hit? It sounds like you are arguing more out of envy than any sound reasoning.

Seabyrn wrote:

Ok, but that assumes a toe-to-toe fight - appropriate for an abstract comparison, but not necessarily indicative of how a well-played fighter would approach things in a real game.

Now you're suggesting that we consider abilities the Fighter doesn't have.

The Fighter doesn't have any abilities that aid in skulduggery. Less than any other class. What's more, if you assume things get fancy, any intelligent monster can pull its own stunts as complicated. Like the fire giant grappling the Fighter then dragging off a cliff and into a lava pit. All hail fire immunity.

And raw, toe-to-toe power is something you have to consider, and very nearly all you can consider when talking about Fighters. Go much farther and you're ascribing abilities that Fighters don't have and the rules don't support, that oftentimes amount to DM fiat that the Fighter wins without looking at the rulebooks; that has no bearing on the rules. What unusual options the Fighter has available, most monsters have far more of.

And the Fighter class is supposed to be able to fight toe-to-toe with a strong chance to come out on top; that's their class. That's their job.

I'm not specifically talking about fighter abilities, but player-determined tactics. Charging in to stand within reach may be a mathematically bad idea lots of the time. Why would a fighter commit suicide in this fashion? That's not their job. If overmatched, they can use hit and run tactics, ranged weapons (if available) to soften up the opponent, negotiation, etc. This is true of any character facing a superior opponent - why do you insist that the fighter has no alternatives but to die uselessly in these cases?

The job of the fighter is to fight - and to do so as effectively as possible. "Fight" does not have to mean simply trading blows with a superior opponent (especially because that's not generally effective - as you point out). Against an inferior opponent, or an equal opponent, the fighter actually (mathematically) can stand toe-to-toe with a strong chance to come out on top.

The problem lies in whether the opponent is superior. And this is precisely the balance problem - a superior opponent for a fighter may be an inferior one for a wizard. How does one find the right middle ground such that the fighter isn't hopelessly outmatched, but the wizard isn't bored either?

I am extremely capable of solving the problem; I cut out the unfair mechanics and bring in the fair ones.

What I asked was: Can you provide encounters that challenge a fighter and wizard together, using the core mechanics. (tossing out or changing the core mechanics does not provide a solution to the problem as given).

The big secret to balancing out games is to get it out of the way during character creation so that you don't have to spend the entire game precision-tailoring encounters to the "strengths" of characters that ultimately don't have any while simultaneously screwing one person over as much as possible.

Once the game begins, the game should be balanced such that the DM can throw out a standard array of normal challenges without worrying that one person will be able to solve everything while another can scarcely contribute at all.

If the players choose poor tactics, even a standard encounter that the DM thought would be manageable can turn into a TPK.

Likewise, if the players choose exceptional tactics a standard encounter that was supposed to be difficult could be little more than a speed bump.

The game requires a certain amount of flexibility and adaptability on the part of the DM to keep things fun.

If all you want is a standard array of normal challenges, you scarcely need a DM at all - the players can just go from one prefab encounter against standard monster tactics to the next. If I want that I'll play checkers.

You have a valid point if the discussion is on a sorcerer. Most wizards are not going to memorize hold person 8 times in hopes you fail to save once.

My point is that a hold person spell is a significant resource. If you get a save vs the effect every round as in the spell description, it becomes less valuable since odds are the held monster will break out of the spell pretty quickly.

Hideous Laughter is just better, and a level lower. And no, a Hold Person spell (or any other spell) is not a significant resource. None of the spells we're discussing are. Spells as significant resources don't start appearing until you're talking about 5th-level spells and above (and even then, some staffs will fix that problem).

What is wrong with that? Most monster have great fortitude saves and decent reflex saves. Should they have no weak spots for casters? Should all monsters have high AC's so that fighters have a hard time attacking them? I don't see your logic in this.

No I don't see the trouble. My earlier post refers to many ways to avoid mental control. Most of which are magical. Just as your best ways to survive physical combat is by taking physical protection, your best chance to survive magical combat may be by taking magical defenses. How is that so hard to understand?

So you are upset that I can help the party defeat monsters with magic?

I am sorry you feel this way.

Why do you even bother to play the game?

It is a team effort. I can't possibly cast every spell and win every battle by myself. It is impossible. You always need the other members of your group.

Try and play a party of casters and you will most likely die unless the DM really tailor's the game to your party and even then it won't be much fun.

You will always need at least one or more martial characters in the party.

I don't understand what you mean by coddling. Do you really want me in the front lines with my AC of 12 swinging my quarterstaff with a mighty +0 to hit? It sounds like you are arguing more out of envy than any sound reasoning.

Finally, Talek & Luna, please learn to make use of the quote tree system. I would appreciate not having to work through that sort of mess of a post again in order to pick out the bits that actually contained your most recent response.

What I asked was: Can you provide encounters that challenge a fighter and wizard together, using the core mechanics. (tossing out or changing the core mechanics does not provide a solution to the problem as given).

Include two monsters in the combat. One is an appropriate challenge for the Wizard (we'll call this monster Adam) and one is an appropriate challenge for the Fighter (we'll call this monster Brandon).

Give Adam the extraordinary ability: Cannot be affected by Fighters in any way.

Give Brandon the extraordinary ability: Cannot be affected by Wizards in any way.

Bam! Balanced combat. Of course, you might as well be playing two separate games at that point, but a solution is a solution.

Talek. Code.

I think you're missing the point here, in a few ways. First, in the tier system you referred to, if there is a party of tier 6 characters (so no wizard), it would be perfectly reasonable to challenge that party with a flying creature - and a properly designed encounter could provide a challenge to a bunch of fighter characters without automatically being a TPK.

And mind, tier 6 falls apart, itself; a Samurai next to a Commoner is nearly as bad as a Wizard next to a Fighter. Tier 6 is basically the, "So weak it doesn't matter anymore," tier.

I'm not specifically talking about fighter abilities, but player-determined tactics. Charging in to stand within reach may be a mathematically bad idea lots of the time. Why would a fighter commit suicide in this fashion? That's not their job. If overmatched, they can use hit and run tactics, ranged weapons (if available) to soften up the opponent, negotiation, etc. This is true of any character facing a superior opponent - why do you insist that the fighter has no alternatives but to die uselessly in these cases?

Also, by and large, hit and run ain't gonna work; Fighters don't get any stealth skills, nor do they get any abilities that support stealth, so if it comes down to just shooting and running while you're being chased, the rules are structured that you will be caught. Single moves versus 4x-speed running, often at a greater base speed than your own.

Point, another: The fact that the level 10 Fighter can't go toe-to-toe with a fire giant is a failing. You're calling it a "superior foe," but by the defined parameters of the game, it's not supposed to be superior. A fire giant is supposed to be the equal of that level 10 melee Fighter. The Fighter's supposed to be able to compete against it, with about a 50% chance of winning. That a creature defined as being an equal is, in fact, a "superior foe" and cannot be met directly is a Big Deal. Particularly since those enemies can play smart, too, and some are even better-equipped for playing smart.

The job of the fighter is to fight - and to do so as effectively as possible. "Fight" does not have to mean simply trading blows with a superior opponent (especially because that's not generally effective - as you point out). Against an inferior opponent, or an equal opponent, the fighter actually (mathematically) can stand toe-to-toe with a strong chance to come out on top.

What I asked was: Can you provide encounters that challenge a fighter and wizard together, using the core mechanics. (tossing out or changing the core mechanics does not provide a solution to the problem as given).

I think this is an exaggeration - the wizard is not being screwed over just because she isn't able to totally dominate every encounter.

I don't expect this out of a game - I expect the DM to do the work to make sure that all characters are challenged and can contribute.

If the players choose poor tactics, even a standard encounter that the DM thought would be manageable can turn into a TPK.

If all you want is a standard array of normal challenges, you scarcely need a DM at all - the players can just go from one prefab encounter against standard monster tactics to the next. If I want that I'll play checkers.

When the party's about to raid the bandit lair, I shouldn't have to go through and say, "Alright, I'm throwing in some locked doors and traps for the Rogue, and I'm going to throw in some low-level stealthy types to be caught by the Ranger's good detection skills, then I'll have a lot of mooks for the Fighter to Great Cleave, then I'll have a Catholic schoolgirl because the Wizard likes casting Evan's Spiked Tentacles of Forced Intrusion."

No, I should be able to say, "What level of power am I aiming for, and what obstacles make sense for bandits of that power level?" and then have a party of sufficient power that they can face that challenge and generally be able to contribute without my having to contrive scenarios explicitly tailored to making them useful every single time.

Seabyrn wrote:

What I asked was: Can you provide encounters that challenge a fighter and wizard together, using the core mechanics. (tossing out or changing the core mechanics does not provide a solution to the problem as given).

Yes.

Include two monsters in the combat. One is an appropriate challenge for the Wizard (we'll call this monster Adam) and one is an appropriate challenge for the Fighter (we'll call this monster Brandon).

Give Adam the extraordinary ability: Cannot be affected by Fighters in any way.

Give Brandon the extraordinary ability: Cannot be affected by Wizards in any way.

Bam! Balanced combat. Of course, you might as well be playing two separate games at that point, but a solution is a solution.

Although, this is essentially the "split the party" solution that has been suggested a few times already. (and I expect these extraordinary abilities will strain in-game credulity....)

Well, truly I am dumbfounded - I should have expected the unexpected :)

Although, this is essentially the "split the party" solution that has been suggested a few times already. (and I expect these extraordinary abilities will strain in-game credulity....)

But you work with what you've got.

Slightly off-topic, but I just had a weird inspiration hit me, and I was wanting to run it by Scott and Valetta and this is the easiest thread to catch them both on.

What would happen, if the game handed out a free +1 strength every 2 class level granted BAB? That seems like it would go a long way to fixing the Fighter/Barbarian/3.5 Paladin in terms of meeting level appropriate brutes, and would even help the poor monk a bit. (Also, it's irrelevant to 3.5 druids, and Pathfinder druids would actually need the boost to be combat relevant while wildshaping anyway)

So... I'm sure there are a bunch of holes in it, but I'm curious, what do you guys think of it?

Seabyrn wrote:

I think you're missing the point here, in a few ways. First, in the tier system you referred to, if there is a party of tier 6 characters (so no wizard), it would be perfectly reasonable to challenge that party with a flying creature - and a properly designed encounter could provide a challenge to a bunch of fighter characters without automatically being a TPK.

When you're taking measures to balance out the game beforehand, you're taking measures to balance out the game beforehand. You're still gonna have to deliberately softball the characters. That everyone is hideously underpowered doesn't change the fact that any individual member is hideously underpowered; the group still isn't going to be able to handle encounters at CR. Yes, encounter design becomes tremendously more manageable.

And mind, tier 6 falls apart, itself; a Samurai next to a Commoner is nearly as bad as a Wizard next to a Fighter. Tier 6 is basically the, "So weak it doesn't matter anymore," tier.

Seabyrn wrote:

I'm not specifically talking about fighter abilities, but player-determined tactics. Charging in to stand within reach may be a mathematically bad idea lots of the time. Why would a fighter commit suicide in this fashion? That's not their job. If overmatched, they can use hit and run tactics, ranged weapons (if available) to soften up the opponent, negotiation, etc. This is true of any character facing a superior opponent - why do you insist that the fighter has no alternatives but to die uselessly in these cases?

Fighters don't have any exceptional negotiation abilities, and for a Fighter to negotiate in the first place would likely require the system to be thrown out the window entirely. And that's a large problem with a lot of these "player-determined tactics" you keep citing; they don't have any basis within the rules.

And I totally don't understand what you mean by the suggestion that for a fighter to negotiate is such a system-destroying act. You're saying that if everyone else is on the ground bleeding, the fighter should just stand toe-to-toe and fight because he is not an exceptional negotiator? Or that for the fighter to negotiate in that situation would indicate a broken system? That's truly strange to me.

Point, another: The fact that the level 10 Fighter can't go toe-to-toe with a fire giant is a failing. You're calling it a "superior foe," but by the defined parameters of the game, it's not supposed to be superior. A fire giant is supposed to be the equal of that level 10 melee Fighter. The Fighter's supposed to be able to compete against it, with about a 50% chance of winning. That a creature defined as being an equal is, in fact, a "superior foe" and cannot be met directly is a Big Deal. Particularly since those enemies can play smart, too, and some are even better-equipped for playing smart.

And the problem is that the "equal opponent" is, in fact, a monster several to many levels lower than the Fighter, rather than a monster of the Fighter's level. That's precisely what makes the Fighter unable to contribute in a level-appropriate manner. Even a Commoner can fight as an equal against foes that are of equal power to themselves. The fact that you may have a level 6 Commoner taking on a CR3 ogre still means they're gimped.

Something of an illusion can be maintained if you throw out mobs of CR2 mooks for the Fighter to Great Cleave while the Wizard takes on something dangerous.

Seabyrn wrote:

I don't expect this out of a game - I expect the DM to do the work to make sure that all characters are challenged and can contribute.

I do. I just do it in the most efficient manner possible; by making sure the group is of comparable power with significant contributions to the group before play even starts.

That the standard array of normal encounters should be a viable option does not mean that's the only way the game should be played. What's more, you're missing the value in it being an option.
When the party's about to raid the bandit lair, I shouldn't have to go through and say, "Alright, I'm throwing in some locked doors and traps for the Rogue, and I'm going to throw in some low-level stealthy types to be caught by the Ranger's good detection skills, then I'll have a lot of mooks for the Fighter to Great Cleave, then I'll have a Catholic schoolgirl because the Wizard likes casting Evan's Spiked Tentacles of Forced Intrusion."

No, I should be able to say, "What level of power am I aiming for, and what obstacles make sense for bandits of that power level?" and then have a party of sufficient power that they can face that challenge and generally be able to contribute without my having to contrive scenarios explicitly tailored to making them useful every single time.

If you have a party of commoners, the bandits may need to be inept and rather drunk for the commoners to stand a chance.

If you have a party of wizards, the bandits may need to be spell-slinging badasses.

If you have a mixed party, the situation, terrain, and simultaneous events may need to be sufficiently more complex, and may even be geared more towards role-playing ultimately, to really level the playing field for a stretch.

Slightly off-topic, but I just had a weird inspiration hit me, and I was wanting to run it by Scott and Valetta and this is the easiest thread to catch them both on.

What would happen, if the game handed out a free +1 strength every 2 class level granted BAB? That seems like it would go a long way to fixing the Fighter/Barbarian/3.5 Paladin in terms of meeting level appropriate brutes, and would even help the poor monk a bit. (Also, it's irrelevant to 3.5 druids, and Pathfinder druids would actually need the boost to be combat relevant while wildshaping anyway)

So... I'm sure there are a bunch of holes in it, but I'm curious, what do you guys think of it?

kyrt-ryder wrote:

Slightly off-topic, but I just had a weird inspiration hit me, and I was wanting to run it by Scott and Valetta and this is the easiest thread to catch them both on.

What would happen, if the game handed out a free +1 strength every 2 class level granted BAB? That seems like it would go a long way to fixing the Fighter/Barbarian/3.5 Paladin in terms of meeting level appropriate brutes, and would even help the poor monk a bit. (Also, it's irrelevant to 3.5 druids, and Pathfinder druids would actually need the boost to be combat relevant while wildshaping anyway)

So... I'm sure there are a bunch of holes in it, but I'm curious, what do you guys think of it?

Well, it makes them better at something they already do: hitting things. What it doesn't do is give them the raw control and versatility that spellcasters have. Until the fighter has resources at his disposal that allow him a fighting chance at countering the things a spellcaster can throw his way (or until the spellcasters themselves are dialed back to a reasonable point), he's still just a guy with a sword in a world filled with reality-shaping magic-users.

You clean up one of those two issues, you've helped bring a little more parity to the archtype, though yeah, the other is a bigger problem.

Kyrt, maybe I should just send you my 1e PHB and DMG. The answers you seek lie within...

Kyrt, maybe I should just send you my 1e PHB and DMG. The answers you seek lie within...

If you take the advice of the 1e PHB and DMG, then the solution is to TPK the party repeatedly until they figure out what it is you're trying to make them do.

Kyrt, maybe I should just send you my 1e PHB and DMG. The answers you seek lie within...

Kyrt, maybe I should just send you my 1e PHB and DMG. The answers you seek lie within...

houstonderek wrote:

Kyrt, maybe I should just send you my 1e PHB and DMG. The answers you seek lie within...

Hey houstonderek, if your going to be sending people cool old books i'd love them. And i won't be sarcastic about them either :D

Kyrt, maybe I should just send you my 1e PHB and DMG. The answers you seek lie within...

Kyrt, maybe I should just send you my 1e PHB and DMG. The answers you seek lie within...

I mean ... WTF?

houstonderek wrote:

Kyrt, maybe I should just send you my 1e PHB and DMG. The answers you seek lie within...

LOL, lot of hate for the Holy Books of Gygax. Still a kick-ass group of books (Though you can't forget Deities and Demigods). It's amazing how we ever managed to have fun playing those unbalanced characters oh so long ago HD, we must have been total idiots!

The idea of designing complex games for balance is a new science, and it was in its fledgling days back then. Just like anything else in history, it takes trial and error and a lot of time to improve on concepts.

houstonderek wrote:

Kyrt, maybe I should just send you my 1e PHB and DMG. The answers you seek lie within...

LOL, lot of hate for the Holy Books of Gygax. Still a kick-ass group of books (Though you can't forget Deities and Demigods). It's amazing how we ever managed to have fun playing those unbalanced characters oh so long ago HD, we must have been total idiots!

I mean ... WTF?

This has been a very informative discussion and rather than showcase my ignorance by adding my own .02 I'd like to ask why no one has discussed 2nd edition's Fighter class feature of attracting followers (1 midlevel leader, a dozen or so elite soldiers, and a few dozen or so 0 level canon fodder) as at least one edition's attempt to balance fighters and wizards. It's not a mechanical balance per se, but it's a rough way of enabling a fighter to threaten the wizard using a class feature.

Obviously this not a fight that would commonly happen in an actual game, but it's a good RP response. For example, in usual dungeon or party-centered missions the wizard would still shine, but in larger scale quests the fighter's player has the option of conscripting his soldier npcs to advance towards the goal.

It's true that the wizard has the option of having followers as well (he can pay them, just like a Fighter has to pay for and maintain a stronghold in order for the soldiers to remain loyal), but in my previous games (long time ago, for sure) the wizard really didn't have that option, for various reasons that I won't go into now in the interest of space.

Not sure if this furthers the discussion, but maybe someone can tell me whether I have a point.

What would happen, if the game handed out a free +1 strength every 2 class level granted BAB? That seems like it would go a long way to fixing the Fighter/Barbarian/3.5 Paladin in terms of meeting level appropriate brutes, and would even help the poor monk a bit. (Also, it's irrelevant to 3.5 druids, and Pathfinder druids would actually need the boost to be combat relevant while wildshaping anyway)

So... I'm sure there are a bunch of holes in it, but I'm curious, what do you guys think of it?

unless the fun to be had is with 'softball' encounters (or rather, what would be softball encounters for higher tier character classes).

Neither does role-playing per se, but it's still a game-defining aspect of the game. That's what I'm referring to, and sure, it's not captured in the math, but that's exactly the point. The math isn't everything.

The system is a collection of rules. Mechanical balance is about those rules. The rules are more than mathematics, yes, but they're still the rules. When you start throwing out the rules, you stop looking at the balance of the system.

And I totally don't understand what you mean by the suggestion that for a fighter to negotiate is such a system-destroying act. You're saying that if everyone else is on the ground bleeding, the fighter should just stand toe-to-toe and fight because he is not an exceptional negotiator? Or that for the fighter to negotiate in that situation would indicate a broken system? That's truly strange to me.

I'm saying that declaring the Fighter's ability to negotiate an aspect worthy of consideration in mechanical game balance is absurd. Yes, it can happen in-game, but that's not remotely a part of the system in any capacity. Further, anyone could do the same. The Fighter, the Rogue, the Cleric, the Commoner. You're saying things that don't exist within the system should be used to gauge balance within the system.

We're not talking about how games should be run, here. We're talking about the system.

I believe this was discussed to death in another thread, and the conclusion I gathered from that discussion is that the CR system is not reliable enough for this conclusion. Certainly I do not think it is true that a fire giant is intended to be equal to a level 10 fighter at melee.

A CR10 encounter is meant to be one that merely inconveniences a four-person level 10 party, that they get by with little difficulty. To actually push that level 10 party to their limits, you have to send out a CR14 encounter, which should drain 100% percent of the party's resources, or in other words, pose a 50/50 shot at a TPK. Mind, these numbers are approximate.

Four CR10 monsters constitute a CR14 encounter. These can be monsters with group dynamics and synergy of their own. In order to win, every member of the party must contribute at least as much to their side as an opposing CR10. In other words, every party member is, by definition, supposed to wield comparable power to a CR10. If you then take the fire giant and the Fighter out of that clash and have them duel each other, they're still supposed to be comparably powerful, their abilities are themselves comparable, they both have a similar dearth of support capabilities (meaning testing 'em solo is fair), and they're both losing out equally from the loss of their comrades.

Yes, there's a large degree of variance within the model. That's why the standard array of normal challenges is important. You don't just compare the Fighter to a fire giant. You compare her to a gargantuan scorpion and an eleven-headed hydra, and a pair of dire tigers, and other CR10 encounters.

No. the problem is that 'level appropriate' is difficult to establish with both fighters and wizards in the mix together. A level appropriate encounter for a party of fighters is different than a level appropriate encounter for a party of wizards. One is only 'gimped' in relation to the other.

We clearly have different expectations.

If you have a mixed party, the situation, terrain, and simultaneous events may need to be sufficiently more complex, and may even be geared more towards role-playing ultimately, to really level the playing field for a stretch.

2) This is specifically not "What level of power am I aiming for," but rather, "How do I explicitly play to this one character's strengths to make her feel useful?"

This has been a very informative discussion and rather than showcase my ignorance by adding my own .02 I'd like to ask why no one has discussed 2nd edition's Fighter class feature of attracting followers (1 midlevel leader, a dozen or so elite soldiers, and a few dozen or so 0 level canon fodder) as at least one edition's attempt to balance fighters and wizards.

This should tell you something.

This may hold for tier 5, but not for tier 6; that one has Commoners, Warriors, and Aristocrats on the same tier.

You don't play a tier 6 game except for laughs or Paranoia-style or something.

My group has always been good at figuring out a way for the party not to be dominated by magic users, but the problem is there. We don't play 4e, and uses 3.5 + homebrew (who doesn't?).

It seems difficult for fighters to be buffed to be on par with other classes. Other than making them REALLY good at melee, what else can be done? Our group avoided ToB (for no real reason other than we got sick of new books), so we haven't really explored those options. What options in ToB are actually good at balancing classes other than "deal more damage"?

Adding mobility in PF is certainly nice, but it's probably not enough.

If banning classes is out, what can be done to improve fighters and warrior types? Improving their melee doesn't really solve the problem that magic users can end fights without resorting to damage. Perhaps warriors should get abilities to get enemies to surrender similar to breaking morale?

I'd like to ask why no one has discussed 2nd edition's Fighter class feature of attracting followers

It seems difficult for fighters to be buffed to be on par with other classes. Other than making them REALLY good at melee, what else can be done? Our group avoided ToB (for no real reason other than we got sick of new books), so we haven't really explored those options. What options in ToB are actually good at balancing classes other than "deal more damage"?

It seems difficult for fighters to be buffed to be on par with other classes. Other than making them REALLY good at melee, what else can be done?

More importantly, I've monkeyed with the basic combat mechanics. Iterative attacks can be traded for additional movement. Attacks and/or movement can be tactically reserved for use as immediate actions later in the round. Concentration DCs scale with the threatening character's BAB. Spellcasting is a full attack action, not a standard action. Etc.

As VV pointed out earlier, all this requires a lot of work and even more playtesting. There are easier ways of getting a balanced 3e/PF game; this is just the method our group chose (probably because 2/5 of us are major 1e grognards).

If banning classes is out, what can be done to improve fighters and warrior types? Improving their melee doesn't really solve the problem that magic users can end fights without resorting to damage. Perhaps warriors should get abilities to get enemies to surrender similar to breaking morale?

Hold person? A stunning strike.
Finger of death? Stab through the heart.
Flight? Acrobatic leaps to carry the warrior within range. (Not magical, but definitely cinematic. Some people may not like that.)
Invisibility? Blinding the enemy or using the confusion of battle to mess up their aim.

This may not satisfy anyone, on either side. But I think it's what some people are trying to advocate for.

Alfonso Jimenez wrote:

I'd like to ask why no one has discussed 2nd edition's Fighter class feature of attracting followers

I addressed that earlier, wrt the equivalent 1e ability. The problem is that, while an army represented a noticeable advantage in 1e, in 3e the comparative ease and safety of summoning monsters with DR allows any caster to nullify an army of any size using planar binding. Recall that in 1e, by strict RAW, summoning and binding extraplanar monsters was an exceptionally dangerous undertaking, usually requiring a number of spells that most casters didn't have access to. In 3e, anyone with planar binding and a magic circle is good to go against any army of any size.

I guess that's at least one reason to go back to 1e or, an idea I've been toying with recently, going back to 2nd edition.

BYC wrote:

If banning classes is out, what can be done to improve fighters and warrior types? Improving their melee doesn't really solve the problem that magic users can end fights without resorting to damage. Perhaps warriors should get abilities to get enemies to surrender similar to breaking morale?

What I think the "spellcasting isn't balanced" crowd wants is something that gives warriors equivalent options to spellcasters. But I don't think they're saying those options have to be magical.

Hold person? A stunning strike.
Finger of death? Stab through the heart.
Flight? Acrobatic leaps to carry the warrior within range. (Not magical, but definitely cinematic. Some people may not like that.)
Invisibility? Blinding the enemy or using the confusion of battle to mess up their aim.

This may not satisfy anyone, on either side. But I think it's what some people are trying to advocate for.

My DM has given fancy abilities to warrior types before, so this is not new to me (or to most players I imagine), but finding a good balance between these things are extremely difficult, and will be based on a group's tendencies.

For example, in our game, the DM gets us to go into enemy strongholds, where the villain(s) has numerous minions, traps, and so many things to drain our resources. It's weird, but we don't actually have a full cleric for healing, so damage dealt to us is hard to fully heal (gives a great feel of life and death though). Our prime healer is my level 11 paladin, and we have a party of 10 (6 PCs 4 NPCs). We are regularly outnumbered 3 to 1 or more, and lots of grunts that are tough enough or numerous enough that we can't magic them all away. As a group, we're used to this, and expect it, so the balance problems are often hidden. I fully admit this, but we still enjoy it.

I have played in groups where non-wizards were the meat shields, and it sucked, so I fully understand that spell casting is far more powerful, even with nerfed spells in 3e. I didn't think about it for a while, but melee are indeed further nerfed or designed far weaker in 3e, and it sucks.

Although I agree with this, and the other suggestions listed, the line between classes begin the blur, and that's a bad thing.

(Arbitrary in the sense that their boundaries aren't actually clear when you think about them, not that they were picked without a reason.)

For what it's worth, tier 6 is "mechanically incapable of handling any sort of challenge that cannot be solved with chickens or small amounts of damage."

You don't play a tier 6 game except for laughs or Paranoia-style or something.

It seems difficult for fighters to be buffed to be on par with other classes. Other than making them REALLY good at melee, what else can be done? Our group avoided ToB (for no real reason other than we got sick of new books), so we haven't really explored those options. What options in ToB are actually good at balancing classes other than "deal more damage"?

BYC wrote:

It seems difficult for fighters to be buffed to be on par with other classes. Other than making them REALLY good at melee, what else can be done? Our group avoided ToB (for no real reason other than we got sick of new books), so we haven't really explored those options. What options in ToB are actually good at balancing classes other than "deal more damage"?

Tome of Battle works because it provides meaningful options, not just bigger numbers. If you're a Crusader with a stack of Devoted Spirit maneuvers/stances, you have some stout options for healing yourself. The fact that most maneuvers are swift, immediate, or standard actions adds needed mobility. There are buffs, debuffs, ways to get past DR/hardness, ways to improve mobility further, some utility, and generally lots of good and meaningful stuff melee can do other than the same charge/full attack/trip/grapple/bull rush/blah they had at level 1.

Most complaints I see about "Bo9S is overpowered" fall into one of three categories - those who seriously believe that casters should overly dominate and don't want melee being able to do anything comparable, those who think it's too "anime" and inappropriate for D&D (thus the degrading nickname "Book of Weeaboo Fightan Magik"), and those who have had it played by someone who's really good at optimizing and were unprepared for the sheer amount of things they can make a melee character do (and, in the case of Crusader, make a melee character live through) that they could never manage before.

Viletta Vadim wrote:

BYC wrote:

It seems difficult for fighters to be buffed to be on par with other classes. Other than making them REALLY good at melee, what else can be done? Our group avoided ToB (for no real reason other than we got sick of new books), so we haven't really explored those options. What options in ToB are actually good at balancing classes other than "deal more damage"?

Tome of Battle works because it provides meaningful options, not just bigger numbers. If you're a Crusader with a stack of Devoted Spirit maneuvers/stances, you have some stout options for healing yourself. The fact that most maneuvers are swift, immediate, or standard actions adds needed mobility. There are buffs, debuffs, ways to get past DR/hardness, ways to improve mobility further, some utility, and generally lots of good and meaningful stuff melee can do other than the same charge/full attack/trip/grapple/bull rush/blah they had at level 1.

As much as VV's writing style tends to infuriate me - even when I agree with her - I have to agree this is where they got it right. Bo9S fixes a LOT of the major weaknesses of the base melee-focused classes. Even just throwing away the class abilities and giving the maneuver progression or at least a partial one to the base Fighter and Monk make them significantly more viable in pretty much any situation.

Most complaints I see about "Bo9S is overpowered" fall into one of three categories - those who seriously believe that casters should overly dominate and don't want melee being able to do anything comparable, those who think it's too "anime" and inappropriate for D&D (thus the degrading nickname "Book of Weeaboo Fightan Magik"), and those who have had it played by someone who's really good at optimizing and were unprepared for the sheer amount of things they can make a melee character do (and, in the case of Crusader, make a melee character live through) that they could never manage before.

houstonderek wrote:

Kyrt, maybe I should just send you my 1e PHB and DMG. The answers you seek lie within...

No, they don't. Those are horribly written books which can only be appreciated with the benefit of nostalgia.

If you take the advice of the 1e PHB and DMG, then the solution is to TPK the party repeatedly until they figure out what it is you're trying to make them do.

[Houston Derek is]....kind of like this crabby old uncle who's somehow still cool most of the time

This has been a very informative discussion and rather than showcase my ignorance by adding my own .02 I'd like to ask why no one has discussed 2nd edition's Fighter class feature of attracting followers (1 midlevel leader, a dozen or so elite soldiers, and a few dozen or so 0 level canon fodder) as at least one edition's attempt to balance fighters and wizards. It's not a mechanical balance per se, but it's a rough way of enabling a fighter to threaten the wizard using a class feature.

The real problem is your hooking some major RP requirements to the class. The idea that all fighters would want these hangers on is an issue, Also they don't really do anything much of the time. You can use them as trivial cannon fodder but you still have to keep track of them and such until that point when you face some kind of a significant monster and then they all get eaten. Ultimately it boils down to adding book keeping without any real payoff. Better to just give the fighter a keep or some such if it would make sense for the story - since its almost certainly going to play to story aspects of the game and not the balanced combat aspects anyways and leave it out of the mechanics of being a fighter. I was always much more partial to the Big Ass f**#ing intelligent sword that has sick but limited use abilities.

That's good, because even though I want to balance things out, I don't want warrior types to have a lot of their abilities be actually "magical" and can be disrupted by AMF, Dispel, or Disjunction.

I have to admit that's one of the reasons I instantly disliked the book. It feels so off compared to traditional D&D. I especially hated all the names. I'm reading it right now, and I roll my eyes constantly at the names, but the effects are definitely more powerful than any fighter (perhaps not PF barb and PF pally...not sure). Looks like most the abilities are EX, but a few are SU. That's good, because even though I want to balance things out, I don't want warrior types to have a lot of their abilities be actually "magical" and can be disrupted by AMF, Dispel, or Disjunction.

And warrior types are already screwed by disjunction far more than mages. A warrior looses all his magical equipment permanently, with a will save on every item. A mage has a higher will save and cares about gear less and keeps her spellcasting afterward.

Though really, Disjunction is one of those spells you just don't use because a single casting totally messes up the game. A spell that reads, "Make ten will saves or lose 10k-100k gold per failed save," is pretty harsh to just flick around.

Though really, Disjunction is one of those spells you just don't use because a single casting totally messes up the game. A spell that reads, "Make ten will saves or lose 10k-100k gold per failed save," is pretty harsh to just flick around.

Then again, depending on the sadism of your DM....

....even though I want to balance things out, I don't want warrior types to have a lot of their abilities be actually "magical" and can be disrupted by AMF, Dispel, or Disjunction.

That said if I remember the book right Desert Wind and Shadow Hand are the biggest offenders (maybe some Devoted Spirit), and even within them there were a few that weren't overly supernatural.

In theory, anyway. In practice, there are strikers (most strikers and some controllers), bad strikers (the rest of the strikers, the rest of the controllers, pretty much all of the defenders), stunlockers (some controllers), and healers.

4e's class balance isn't all it's cracked up to be.

Truth is I bet if you take this to the 4E forums and try and get to any consensus of what the best class mix is you'll get a slew of different answers.

Thing is the DM is holding all the cards in this game so every groups experience can vary a phenomenal amount. There is a very large difference between facing 30 minions, a Dragon solo and a group of 10 pretty tough customers half of whom are good at range. Beyond that if you can win by just defeating the monsters thats a big difference when compared to an encounter (as in many of the Scales of War encounters) were you have no real choice but to try and get from point A to point B while in the middle of a fight.

In 3.5 you had some go to options that will allow you to deal with the vast majority of things the DM is likely to face you with - some general rules - that would serve you in good stead the vast majority of the time. This is harder in 4E - your faced with caps on defenses that are low enough that there is no build that will make you neigh un-hit-able and with defense scaling faster then offense the 'kill them before they can do anything' option is not nearly as good as it was in 3.5 and none of the powers available to any of the classes allow you to just nerf enemies for extended periods of time.

In 4E being good against one type of encounter means a trade off between not being as good against a different type of encounter and its really difficult to discern before hand how much of one style you'll face compared to other styles. If you knew that you'd usually face many Solo encounters and would only occasionally throw down with minions you could plan for it but, most of the time, you can't really evaluate what percentage of encounters are likely to feature elites and solo's versus what percentage will feature minions - and there is a big difference here because your nasty Barbarian that dishes out more damage then any other character when raging is pretty crappy verus minions who die to one hit irrespective of damage.

Similarly some characters are excellent in melee which is fine until (also popular in Scales of War) you repeatedly bump into encounters with enemy archers 20 squares away and no easy way to get to the rotton bastards - at which point bows or powers with a range of 20+ become the only viable alternative - unless you can fly (good luck with finding that for the whole party).

Ultimately it comes down to the fact that 4E characters are so much weaker then 3.5 ones and simply don't have access to the same kind of mobility options available to 3.5 characters - the result is the DM has much more effective trump cards - instead of looking for very specific monsters capable of countering the parties strengths the DM has whole broad styles of monsters that will be good against the PCs and can shape the context of the encounters and their environment in a way that will impact 4E characters far more then 3.5 ones. Hence the party that is optimum against one DM's preferred style of encounters is unlikely to be the nuts against another DM and, presuming the style changes from one adventure to the next or even within adventures it'll not be optimal choice even in every fight.

Most of the responses seem to be "increase the power of the warrior".

I say make casting like it was in 1e, even 2e had a smarter way of dealing with spells and initiative compared with the caster loving 3e. Last night I read and then re-read (as required by Gygaxese) the entries in that PHB and DMG (1e). I found that if someone is casting then any others attacking the caster go either on their own initiative or the casters.

This means spell casters NEVER go first in a round in 1e. Every person with some form of attack gets a bash at the spell caster before the spell is cast! Hell a fighter with 2 attacks would even get 2 attacks before the spell is cast. Biff out combat casting, reintroduce if you are hit (or add DEX to AC) you lose your spell.

Wow casters having to think - finally that high INT score will come in use.

S.

Most of the responses seem to be "increase the power of the warrior".

D&D seems to have smashed together two diametric worlds:
* Warrior Supreme: Mages have limitations that make warriors so much better except those times when a mage is really prepared. (Mythologically mages seem to be a support role, giving magic items/buffs to the warrior-hero but not doing anything direct.)
* Mage Supreme: Either the mundanes are the characters with the mage in the background, or the mages are the characters with the mundanes in the background. They never compete because they can't. Or if they can it's in some third arena where the mage has no inherent advantage (such as socializing).

D&D seems to have taken the warrior from Warrior Supreme and assumed that if it could compete against its own mages that it would compete against the mages of Mage Supreme. Whether it can I think depends on whether a GM can set up a Warrior Supreme-like context. But if the GM can't then the game seems to become unbalanced. This suggests three fixes:

Fix 1: Return the mage to Warrior Supreme standards.
Fix 2: Bring the warrior up to Mage Supreme mage standards.
Fix 3: Do away with a sharp distinction between mage and warrior.

The system is a collection of rules. Mechanical balance is about those rules. The rules are more than mathematics, yes, but they're still the rules. When you start throwing out the rules, you stop looking at the balance of the system.

Seabyrn wrote:

And I totally don't understand what you mean by the suggestion that for a fighter to negotiate is such a system-destroying act. You're saying that if everyone else is on the ground bleeding, the fighter should just stand toe-to-toe and fight because he is not an exceptional negotiator? Or that for the fighter to negotiate in that situation would indicate a broken system? That's truly strange to me.

False.
I'm saying that declaring the Fighter's ability to negotiate an aspect worthy of consideration in mechanical game balance is absurd. Yes, it can happen in-game, but that's not remotely a part of the system in any capacity. Further, anyone could do the same. The Fighter, the Rogue, the Cleric, the Commoner. You're saying things that don't exist within the system should be used to gauge balance within the system.

We're not talking about how games should be run, here. We're talking about the system.

To quote you: "False."

To elaborate: I am not claiming that things that don't exist within the system should be used to gauge balance within the system. I am claiming that those things can be used to address/cover-up or mitigate balance problems that exist within the other parts of the game (what you call "the system").

There is a difference. We have no disagreement about the imbalance in the system itself. But, solutions do not have to come exclusively from changes to the system. If a group gets an imbalanced party to work (i.e., to have fun) with well designed encounters or lots of role-playing, that's ok by me.

I understand that there are other solutions (lots of them) that involve houserules to exclude/include various classes, change combat a bit, whatever, that address the balance problem within the system as you consider it. All I am suggesting is that this is not the only path to salvation - and is not necessarily a *necessary* path to salvation.

Seabyrn wrote:

If you have a mixed party, the situation, terrain, and simultaneous events may need to be sufficiently more complex, and may even be geared more towards role-playing ultimately, to really level the playing field for a stretch.

1) Roleplaying does not create mechanical balance.
2) This is specifically not "What level of power am I aiming for," but rather, "How do I explicitly play to this one character's strengths to make her feel useful?"

2) I'm not sure if you're mischaracterizing what I meant, or misunderstand what I meant (of course, I may have been horribly unclear). This is not about playing to one character's strengths to make them feel useful, but in setting up situations in which that character actually is useful. If you like, think of it as trying to set up a single situation that complements a bimodal power distribution. It's more complex than if there was only a single level of power at issue, but it can be done, and if done right will require all characters to contribute meaningfully.