We know it's not just about the numbers

[wraithstrike]

Some times when my fellow boardites, yes I have labeled you with a made up name, start discussing something that leads to numbers someone comes in and talks to us like we don't know the game is more than numbers, and that we don't know the best option is not the only option.

We know this, but when we are having these discussion it is under the intent that the DM will not pull punches, regardless of whether or not any of us would in an actual game. Why? Believe it or not there are DM's that try to play with 100% efficiency every time, and your fun is not an option so they won't hold back one bit. I think that is the minority, but that opinion is neither here nor there.

Another reason is that to assume any amount of mercy will be given brings in to many variables.

So if we say blasting is bad, monks suck, and so on(other common notions) it does not mean none of us ever blast, or play a monk. We are saying its not the optimal thing to do.

PS:I only made this post so I would not have to repeat it if it came up again. It's only something for me to link too.

[Caedwyr]

I'd add "fighters cannot hold their own in high level play against typical opponents such as Balors". That's another old gem that needs to be repeated.

[Nebelwerfer41]

wraithstrike wrote:

Some times when my fellow boardites, yes I have labeled you with a made up name, start discussing something that leads to numbers someone comes in and talks to us like we don't know the game is more than numbers, and that we don't know the best option is not the only option.

We know this, but when we are having these discussion it is under the intent that the DM will not pull punches, regardless of whether or not any of us would in an actual game. Why? Believe it or not there are DM's that try to play with 100% efficiency every time, and your fun is not an option so they won't hold back one bit. I think that is the minority, but that opinion is neither here nor there.

Another reason is that to assume any amount of mercy will be given brings in to many variables.

So if we say blasting is bad, monks suck, and so on(other common notions) it does not mean none of us ever blast, or play a monk. We are saying its not the optimal thing to do.

PS:I only made this post so I would not have to repeat it if it came up again. It's only something for me to link too.

Agreed, it is more than numbers.

[wraithstrike]

Caedwyr wrote:

I'd add "fighters cannot hold their own in high level play against typical opponents such as Balors". That's another old gem that needs to be repeated.

Did you just come from the other thread?

[Caedwyr]

I'm not claiming that numerical analysis of the game is pointless, nor am I saying that there are not cases where the numbers break down to the detriment of the gaming experience. From a fun perspective, most of us wants to avoid the BMX Bandit & Angel Summoner situation (one player/class totally overshadowing another.) In some situations in a role-playing game, however, these types of power imbalances are not an undesirable situation and may even be intentional.

My comments however, were done with the intention to point out that some of the general assumptions are not always correct or that things are as straight forward as is often portrayed. I've seen a large number of threads and posts claiming that "X is broken and the numbers show it". Unfortunately, of those threads there tends to be a disproportionately high number of instances where the assumptions behind the claims leave a lot to be desired.

One common example, would be the claim that different classes should be balanced against each other in a solo/pvp situation. Having played a number of MMOs from both a casual and min-maxer perspective, this is a readily apparent pitfall. For a game that has a long history of encouraging team play, the fact that class synergies never seem to be taken into account when claims of how the "numbers prove X" is disheartening. This is especially true since unlike MMOs, the highly social setting of the game discourages solo play. Solo PVP balancing/number claims tend to take this to even a more extreme conclusions.

Another example is the situation where the claim is "the numbers show that X" is underpowered when there is either a misunderstanding in what role X is intended to fill, or the value of that role being filled. Or that the unbalanced nature of X requires a playstyle/actions that would be ridiculed if explained to an outside observer.

So, yes: there are some situations when the numbers can show some useful information, but far too often the conclusions that are drawn go far beyond what is supported.

[wraithstrike]

Caedwyr wrote:

I'm not claiming that numerical analysis of the game is pointless, nor am I saying that there are not cases where the numbers break down to the detriment of the gaming experience. From a fun perspective, most of us wants to avoid the BMX Bandit & Angel Summoner situation (one player/class totally overshadowing another.) In some situations in a role-playing game, however, these types of power imbalances are not an undesirable situation and may even be intentional.

My comments however, were done with the intention to point out that some of the general assumptions are not always correct or that things are as straight forward as is often portrayed. I've seen a large number of threads and posts claiming that "X is broken and the numbers show it". Unfortunately, of those threads there tends to be a disproportionately high number of instances where the assumptions behind the claims leave a lot to be desired.

One common example, would be the claim that different classes should be balanced against each other in a solo/pvp situation. Having played a number of MMOs from both a casual and min-maxer perspective, this is a readily apparent pitfall. For a game that has a long history of encouraging team play, the fact that class synergies never seem to be taken into account when claims of how the "numbers prove X" is disheartening. This is especially true since unlike MMOs, the highly social setting of the game discourages solo play. Solo PVP balancing/number claims tend to take this to even a more extreme conclusions.

Another example is the situation where the claim is "the numbers show that X" is underpowered when there is either a misunderstanding in what role X is intended to fill, or the value of that role being filled. Or that the unbalanced nature of X requires a playstyle/actions that would be ridiculed if explained to an outside observer.

So, yes: there are some situations when the numbers can show some useful information, but far too often the conclusions that are drawn go far beyond what is...

Off-topic:I just showed the BMX bandit video to some friends a few days ago.

I think the point of such discussions most of the time is that you can't always assume the classic 4 will be there. I have seen parties without any one role filled, and I have seen all caster parties. You can't assume there will be a caster to buff a fighter so the debates are argued in that fashion. To argue otherwise assumes the DM cares about your fun* or that your friend will play the class that is best for the party.

*He should care, but that is another thread. The only way I would not alter the adventure is if I warn the party up front we are playing a publish adventure, and I may not have time to adjust anything. If they want to ignore any roles its on them at that point.

The current Balor/Fighter situation assumes the fighter ever gets to the balor, and it assumes he will get there without anything wrong with him. Man in Black was arguing what could happen in a real adventure at the beginning, but got sucked into a combat scenario that was never likely to happen, or I would like to think that is what happened anyway. I just did a brain dump and forgot where I was going with this, but I will leave it here until I remember.

Edit:changed unlikely to likely

[Jagyr Ebonwood]

So, what you're saying is that you want to be able to discuss mathematics, statistics, and other really crunchy stuff without people chiming in with "Well, most GMs would never do such-and-so" or "I would simply houserule that this worked in a different way."

I think this is perfectly reasonable.

FWIW, I happen to be one of the people whose eyes glaze over during the first few lines of a post that breaks down the statistical outcome of a given level 20 statblock. I'd much rather come to my conclusions via Rule 0.

Which is exactly why I don't post in threads devoted to such things. I'm sure that most of the people involved in such exercises wouldn't get so crunchy if they were making a ruling at the table, but that's not the point: the threads should be reserved for theoretical statistics etc.

[wraithstrike]

Jagyr Ebonwood wrote:

So, what you're saying is that you want to be able to discuss mathematics, statistics, and other really crunchy stuff without people chiming in with "Well, most GMs would never do such-and-so" or "I would simply houserule that this worked in a different way."

I think this is perfectly reasonable.

FWIW, I happen to be one of the people whose eyes glaze over during the first few lines of a post that breaks down the statistical outcome of a given level 20 statblock. I'd much rather come to my conclusions via Rule 0.

Which is exactly why I don't post in threads devoted to such things. I'm sure that most of the people involved in such exercises wouldn't get so crunchy if they were making a ruling at the table, but that's not the point: the threads should be reserved for theoretical statistics etc.

I just want people to understand we are not just a bunch of number crunching powergamers. Every time I see a post with that type of statement I feel like that is how they feel, even if they don't say it.

[Caedwyr]

wraithstrike wrote:

Off-topic:I just showed the BMX bandit video to some friends a few days ago.

I think the point of such discussions most of the time is that you can't always assume the classic 4 will be there. I have seen parties without any one role filled, and I have seen all caster parties. You can't assume there will be a caster to buff a fighter so the debates are argued in that fashion. To argue otherwise assumes the DM cares about your fun* or that your friend will play the class that is best for the party.

*He should care, but that is another thread. The only way I would not alter the adventure is if I warn the party up front we are playing a publish adventure, and I may not have time to adjust anything. If they want to ignore any roles its on them at that point.

The current Balor/Fighter situation assumes the fighter ever gets to the balor, and it assumes he will get there without anything wrong with him. Man in Black was arguing what could happen in a real adventure at the beginning, but got sucked into a combat scenario that was never unlikely, or I would like to think that is what happened anyway. I just did a brain dump and forgot where I was going with this, but I will leave it here until I remember.

I can see where you are coming from and on the Balor/Fighter topic I can agree that the proposed combat scenarios are unsatisfactory. All the number crunching in the world does not fit as a substitute from actual play examples and situations (I'm guessing this is why game designers seem to like the actual playtests over detailed analyses of the numbers involved). The issue I'm hoping to raise is similar, in that the models used for such numerical analyses are often over simplified.

To give an example using another game some players may be familiar with; in Everquest, there is a class called the "Warrior". Considered individually, the Warrior compares poorly to pretty much every other class in the game. In a 1 on 1 fight against typical monsters it often has a hard time against creatures that are completely trivial for most other classes in the game. Comparing the solo warrior to other classes that fill a similar role in the game and again, the warrior comes out at the bottom by a significant degree. However, put the warrior in a typical group/team or raid (multiple group) situation and Warrior becomes critical for success. The synergies between the warrior and other classes are so effective, that even the other classes that can theoretically fill the same role as the warrior lag too far behind to be considered viable alternatives.

Yes there are major game design/class balancing issues here from a "fun" perspective, but the example aims to illustrate how class synergies can turn what appears to be a pointless weakling solo class into a critical team member. If you don't consider such aspects when balancing classes, then you can run into even more unbalanced situations where the numbers do not work out.

[Caedwyr]

Re-reading the thread, I think we are in general agreement about the value of number crunching. I just wanted to highlight that one can easily assume to much, or project to far when doing so; making the entire number crunching effort meaningless.

[AdAstraGames]

I got chops on crunch. I enjoy crunchy games. I generally don't enjoy them as RPGs.

I understand that not everyone does this - lots of people who'd be much happier playing D&D minis end up trying to min-max their character to a specific job function.

This is why I play Attack Vector: Tactical for crunchy, and Minimus or something of its ilk for roleplaying.

I'm figuring most Pathfinder players aren't interested in an RPG that prints in fewer pages than their character sheet...but I'll throw it out here. (Most D&D/3.5 players I know who use Minimus use it to make sure all the characters have a backstory that connects them to the game world and other players at the table. If they get a use from it, that's fine.)

[Thalin]

As the proponent for "balance" in the other forum, let me offer counterargument.

Nothing is over or under powered, as long as everyone is the same power. If the party consists of lots of low-powered characters, great. If the party is nothing but high-powere character too; great. The latter is often what we run into with the group I play with, and the GM just adjusts the CR up a little and everyone has fun.

The issue starts to become when you have the high-powered mage, his well-built tanking fighter, a solid buffing cleric... and a monk. The monk tries to be front-line melee, but gets pummeled down.

Suddenly he is no fun for everyone; the party feels they constantly have to use resources to make him managable, and he feels like he can't really contribute enough. With the negative reinforcement, our monk friend either becomes depressed or out-and-out quits gaming. It's just not enjoyable for anyone, even if the rest of the party does try to buff him so he doesn't feel fully left out.

It gets more extreme in a living campaign. Now, I used to home game a great deal, but times have changed and with a job and getting older, living campaigns are just an easier way to get together. As long as there are 5 people in the area that are able to play, hey.... game on. It's great, a genius setup.

The problem here again runs into a completly weak character sitting down at your table. Suddenly all of the party resources are spent keeping this guy alive, when he's not able to contribute to any role. You feel terrible, the module takes on a challenge from a perspective it shouldn't, and he can't possibly feel good about himself. What do you do?

I do feel there is a fine line between "keeping the balance" and "overbalancing". I moved away from 4th edition because it was too simple, because every class felt EXACTLY the same. Pathfinder has done an AMAZING job of deciphering the mess of 3.5 and balancing up most of the classes WITHOUT losing the flavor of them. A cleric, a paladin, a fighter, and a rogue (and even varients therein) can play very differently and still contribute. I'm going to go out on a limb and say even the mages aren't such the power-hogs they once were, and now melee exists as not just a viable, but very good option.

But still, a few classes got left behind; notably the "weak in 3.5 in the first place" barbarian, ranger, and monk (one can argue back and forth on the rogue, they did at least improve them a little by making sneak attack affect more things). And here's where the number cruch comes in; if they can't fill a roll or give as many options, why have them? And the reason the thread (and many others) are made, is a plea to improve them in the future. Because monks seem like they SHOULD be cool and fun, they just don't feel like the anime martial artists we all want them to be.

And hey, I'm not saying you have to play optimally. Heck, my primary right now is a Bard, and while bards are good they are certainly not ideal. I play him because he is fun, and its novel to get to play a bard and feel useful with it. I just hope I get to one day do the same with Monks and Barbarians :).

[wraithstrike]

Thalin wrote:

As the proponent for "balance" in the other forum, let me offer counterargument.

Nothing is over or under powered, as long as everyone is the same power. If the party consists of lots of low-powered characters, great. If the party is nothing but high-powere character too; great.

I have experienced that. We all had strong characters, but one guy always tried to break the game. Needless to say he is not with us anymore. It's to hard to DM the power difference.

[Evil Lincoln]

A minority of the community wields mathematics (at times poorly executed, though not always) as a cudgel. All too often these are the same people who lack social graces, and end up getting ostracized — not because of their math, but their demeanor.

I'm sorry if some ill-will carries over.

I see value in the mindset, but I'm also frustrated by the clashing egos and the downright certainty of the assertions. I've had enough university level science classes to know that many such claims are not rigorous.

I'll hold Treantmonk up as a shining example of how to talk optimization without being a jerk. Well, not a complete jerk. Cheers for him, and anyone who follows his example of helping other players rather than just trying to be the smartest guy in the room all the time.

[AdAstraGames]

Here's a character optimization challenge.

Are the mathematically inclined willing to take up the task?

[Treantmonk]

Evil Lincoln wrote:

I'll hold Treantmonk up as a shining example of how to talk optimization without being a jerk. Well, not a complete jerk.

Ummm...thanks?

It seems my wife agrees - I'm not a complete jerk.

[Kolokotroni]

wraithstrike wrote:

I just want people to understand we are not just a bunch of number crunching powergamers. Every time I see a post with that type of statement I feel like that is how they feel, even if they don't say it.

I totally agree that just because people talk numbers doesnt mean they arent a bunch of powergamers, and I have played under dms that 'dont hold back'. The only problem is, these are extremes of behavior. If I post in such a thread as you are speaking of advocating restraint or courtesy among players, its not because I think those looking hard at the numbers are doing something wrong. Its because I really think the system will never be ideally 'balanced' so long as it remains complicated and interesting.

Simple systems are easy to balance. When I have played 4th edition, I honestly feel like i could pour over every book wizards ever releases and not really 'outshine' anyone or contribute more to an encounter then the party would expect. (this is not a shot at 4E it is a fine game for what it is).

In a complicated system, like pathfinder and its 3.x bretheren, finding this balance is wildly more difficult. How do you weight the limitations of the Paladin's Code of Conduct against his offensive powers? How do you weight the ranger's favored enemy bonuses against the fighter's always on feats? And lets not forget how on earth to you weigh the wild variety of stuff a caster can do with spells. Often I see statements where 'if x class does x, y ,and z, it is totally overpowered'. And they are usually right. But what if someone wants to just to x and y? Often that isnt overpowered, and the nerf bat that prevents the x,y and z combo often makes x and y crummy options.

So at least when it comes to me, if I ever post as such in one of those threads, I assure you I am not challenging your integrety as a gamer, or attempting to criticize you for what you are looking at. I am just concerned that focusing on the extremes leaves the middle ground behind.

[Moro]

Jagyr Ebonwood wrote:

FWIW, I happen to be one of the people whose eyes glaze over during the first few lines of a post that breaks down the statistical outcome of a given level 20 statblock. I'd much rather come to my conclusions via Rule 0.

I see this mindset quite a bit, and I'm not saying that it's wrong at all, but don't you agree that if you need to invoke Rule 0 every 5 minutes and/or houserule a system to the point where your list of house rules would be large enough to take up a chapter in the rule book, something is a bit off?

Most of the number crunching discussions that I've seen on these boards are at heart aimed at pointing out flaws in the system in a place where hopefully the designers can see these flaws and do soemthing about them.

[Quixque]

wraithstrike wrote:

Off-topic:I just showed the BMX bandit video to some friends a few days ago.

Off-Topic: The only BMX Bandit video I'm aware of if an 80's Australian film featuring a young Nicole Kidman. What video are you referring to?

[Kolokotroni]

Quixque wrote:

wraithstrike wrote:

Off-topic:I just showed the BMX bandit video to some friends a few days ago.

Off-Topic: The only BMX Bandit video I'm aware of if an 80's Australian film featuring a young Nicole Kidman. What video are you referring to?

Its called BMX Bandit and the Angel Summoner or some such thing. 2 'super' heroes who are team, one which has significant (if unimportant) skills on a Bmx bike, the other who has the power to summon a horde of angels to do his bidding. You can likely find it on youtube.

[varianor]

If your group size goes over 4 to include more than one caster, than a rogue really starts to lose effectiveness versus blasting down the enemies with magic and spells. I know, I play one at 18th level.

No, the game is far more than "just numbers". Numbers make a game interesting, and should always be considered, but abstract calculations do not an inplay experience make.

Oh, and just for fun, I note the posts talking about a DM who trys to run his monsters at 100%. I play in a game like that. Well, ironically, the DM still tries to help us out a lot as well as make the fights tough but winnable. Go figure. It's far more than just "winning". It's being around the table too, and having a good time.

[Selgard]

While I think numbers can be valuable for some things, they almost always fall apart for me when trying to compare classes and such here in D&D because D&D isn't quantifyable mathematically.

There are just too many variables. Yes, I too have seen the 'I am a fighter" monk who gets his clock cleaned. But I've also seen the "hit and run" monk who is quite effective at his job. The game isn't about pure damage. This isn't a FPS. Math can't take tactics into effect.

Yes, its true that monk (for an example) isn't putting out the damage of whoever, but he is keeping a mob distracted. You say "well that mob wouldn't attack the monk, he'd go after someone else doing more damage".
Well.. that is metagaming. I very seriously doubt that if someone was beating on you,t hat you would go walk off to attack someone else just because that particular person wasn't "killing you fast enough".
(applicable to multi-mobs, not a "single mob" scenario, obviously).

And no, I don't mean to turn this into a debate about whether or not Monks suck. I merely used them as an example.

Tactics, Group dynamics, folks working together.. These aren't something that can easily be quantified by a bunch of numbers on a spread sheet.
"but X can only do his job if Y is there" is.. sort of the point. This is D&D. We work together. Its what we do. If I wanted to play a game where I didn't require others I'd log into Fallout or some such and have at it.

"Bob didnt' optimize but we all did, so he sucks".

Great.
Help him. You, the players. You, the DM. Help the guy out. Show him his mistakes and help him to make an effective character. If its his weapon/feat/whatever choice them help him fix them. If its a tactical error, then help him with that. The solution isn't "ok bob sucks, so ignore him". The solution is either 1) tone yourselves down to Bob's level or 2) bring him up to your level.

If you are super optimized and he's rolling randomly for his feats and attribute distribution then it really doesn't matter what his class is. It isn't a balance issue, its a group dynamic issue. The designers can not fix that kind of issue. Only you can.

-S

[Mirror, Mirror]

Selgard wrote:

"Bob didnt' optimize but we all did, so he sucks".

Great.
Help him. You, the players. You, the DM. Help the guy out. Show him his mistakes and help him to make an effective character. If its his weapon/feat/whatever choice them help him fix them. If its a tactical error, then help him with that.

You know, the only problem with this stance it is let's in the attitude that "there is a correct way to play D&D", which I personally hate (call it a pet peeve).

The sentiment is correct, but you must be careful that you are saying "you choices to do the things you want to do are sub-optimal" and not "your character concept is sub-optimal".

As an example, I play a very "I am the Fighter" monk. I happen to know full well that it is sub-optimal, but it's the character I want to play.

[Kolokotroni]

Mirror, Mirror wrote:

Selgard wrote:

"Bob didnt' optimize but we all did, so he sucks".

Great.
Help him. You, the players. You, the DM. Help the guy out. Show him his mistakes and help him to make an effective character. If its his weapon/feat/whatever choice them help him fix them. If its a tactical error, then help him with that.

You know, the only problem with this stance it is let's in the attitude that "there is a correct way to play D&D", which I personally hate (call it a pet peeve).

The sentiment is correct, but you must be careful that you are saying "you choices to do the things you want to do are sub-optimal" and not "your character concept is sub-optimal".

As an example, I play a very "I am the Fighter" monk. I happen to know full well that it is sub-optimal, but it's the character I want to play.

I think the point was not to tell you a right way or a wrong way, but that if you are unhappy with your character compared to your party members they should assist if required in changing that.

[Mirror, Mirror]

Kolokotroni wrote:

I think the point was not to tell you a right way or a wrong way, but that if you are unhappy with your character compared to your party members they should assist if required in changing that.

To be clear, I am NOT saying Selgard is making the claims. I am just putting out a warning, one which should be heeded, IMHO.

And I applaud wraithstrike for this thread. I both play with numbers and flavor, so I get somewhat upset when others who do one or the other cannot seem to just coexist. Rollplaying vs Roleplaying is NOT mutually exclusive!

[wraithstrike]

Quixque wrote:

wraithstrike wrote:

Off-topic:I just showed the BMX bandit video to some friends a few days ago.

Off-Topic: The only BMX Bandit video I'm aware of if an 80's Australian film featuring a young Nicole Kidman. What video are you referring to?

Here you go. BMX bandit

[A Man In Black]

Caedwyr wrote:

To give an example using another game some players may be familiar with; in Everquest, there is a class called the "Warrior". Considered individually, the Warrior compares poorly to pretty much every other class in the game. In a 1 on 1 fight against typical monsters it often has a hard time against creatures that are completely trivial for most other classes in the game. Comparing the solo warrior to other classes that fill a similar role in the game and again, the warrior comes out at the bottom by a significant degree. However, put the warrior in a typical group/team or raid (multiple group) situation and Warrior becomes critical for success. The synergies between the warrior and other classes are so effective, that even the other classes that can theoretically fill the same role as the warrior lag too far behind to be considered viable alternatives.

Because the EQ warrior is an essential tanking class, but tanking is useless if you don't have at least a healer and a DPS. D&D does not have dedicated healers, as healing is so weak that it is an out-of-combat action except at very low and very high levels, nor does it have dedicated tanks, as there is no aggro mechanic. Comparing D&D and EQ in this way doesn't go anywhere useful because D&D doesn't have a strict group composition in the way that EQ does and because D&D classes are all designed to be relatively self-sufficient.

-----

Anyway, numbers.

D&D 3e is a roleplaying game which includes a reasonably balanced tactical wargame. (Yes, this includes Pathfinder.) It is this latter quality that separates D&D 3e from very loose, narrative-focused games (FUDGE, Everway) or point-based toolset games (GURPS, many others). In this game, each character is also a piece in a tactical wargame, with a range of options broad enough to keep players engaged for 20 levels of play (spanning somewhere between 12 to 18 months of play depending on the XP scale) and the ability to contribute to encounters with foes of CR proximate to their level.

Now, this last part, the ability to contribute to encounters with foes of CR proximate to the characters' level. This is something that we can reasonable consider objectively. While there are lots of variables in a particular game, such as party composition and house rules and access to magic items and so forth, it's possible to eliminate most of these variables and consider the rules as they are written. Once we've eliminated as much of this noise as possible, it's possible to discuss the virtues or shortcomings of the rules as written, and from there consider how best to adapt them to our own games.

One of the tools for figuring out roughly where a class is balance-wise are Same Game Tests. Under these tests, optimized examples of a class are expected to be able to handle challenges - including some non-combat challenges - of CR equal to their level approximately 50% of the time. Verging under 40% indicates that the class may have some issues contributing to level-appropriate challenges, whereas verging over 65% indicates that the class may overpower level-appropriate challenges and overshadow other party members. Since SGTs will ideally have optimized characters and near-ideal play, verging a bit high is generally more desirable than verging low.

While classes are generally not designed to handle all encounters on their own, they are designed (or at least expected to) to handle a decent cross-section of level-appropriate challenges on their own. The exact math behind this is in the 3.0 DMG if you're dying to know the specifics, but what's more important than lofty theoretical discussion is the brass-tacks results: SGTs' predictions are roughly accurate. If a class doesn't do well in SGTs, then it will tend to be overshadowed at the table, either due to a weak or overly narrow specialization.

Now, everyone understands that this is a time-consuming and somewhat leaky test, and only measures the ability of classes to contribute to encounters with foes of CR proximate to their level. There's really no need to post umpteen million posts about how SGTs don't simulate real play at the table, aren't the be-all and end-all of roleplaying, how people might want to play weaker classes, etc. Anyone who cares enough to sit down and playtest out classes using SGTs is certain to have heard some variation on one of those arguments at least once for each sentence in this post.

But do understand that most of the people who care enough about the math are trying to find ways so that you do not end up with this or this.

[Caedwyr]

A Man In Black wrote:

Caedwyr wrote:

To give an example using another game some players may be familiar with; in Everquest, there is a class called the "Warrior". Considered individually, the Warrior compares poorly to pretty much every other class in the game. In a 1 on 1 fight against typical monsters it often has a hard time against creatures that are completely trivial for most other classes in the game. Comparing the solo warrior to other classes that fill a similar role in the game and again, the warrior comes out at the bottom by a significant degree. However, put the warrior in a typical group/team or raid (multiple group) situation and Warrior becomes critical for success. The synergies between the warrior and other classes are so effective, that even the other classes that can theoretically fill the same role as the warrior lag too far behind to be considered viable alternatives.

Because the EQ warrior is an essential tanking class, but tanking is useless if you don't have at least a healer and a DPS. D&D does not have dedicated healers, as healing is so weak that it is an out-of-combat action except at very low and very high levels, nor does it have dedicated tanks, as there is no aggro mechanic. Comparing D&D and EQ in this way doesn't go anywhere useful because D&D doesn't have a strict group composition in the way that EQ does and because D&D classes are all designed to be relatively self-sufficient.

So wait. You are dismissing the power of class synergies just because D&D doesn't have as strict class roles as Everquest? Are you claiming that class synergies don't exist in D&D and that their effects should be entirely disregarded? That seems a little like throwing the baby out with the bathwater to me.

[A Man In Black]

Caedwyr wrote:

So wait. You are dismissing the power of class synergies just because D&D doesn't have as strict class roles as Everquest? Are you claiming that class synergies don't exist in D&D and that their effects should be entirely disregarded? That seems a little like throwing the baby out with the bathwater to me.

No, I'm saying that D&D classes are designed to be much more self-sufficient than in EQ. EQ doesn't have synergies; it has strict roles.

[A Man In Black]

Expanding on the above.

In EQ and WOW (and I assume DDO and many others, although I'm not as familiar with those), classes in groups and raids have specific roles, for which they are hyperspecialized. These roles are not, on their own, sufficient to defeat any challenge which requires a group, because the investment of resources to tank, DPS, or heal is so large that it leaves no room for being able to cover another role (if you're even able to invest resources in another role at all). However, this specialization isn't a drawback because the effects of a specialist are so profound that they do the work of the entire group. Tanks are so tough that they can take the full brunt of all the attacks, heals are so profound that characters will often take many times their HP in damage over the course of a fight, and the DPS is so low relative to health pools that any fight of importance is an endurance fight.

D&D 3e is completely different. Any fight over level 5 is generally four rounds or less once combat is joined, and heals are so small that healing isn't its own role. With no aggro, every character needs to manage their own survival in this ultra-deadly environment.

In this environment, every class is necessarily self-sufficient. They manage their own defense, because the short duration of fights and the high offense of enemies allows no time for healing or mutual support. They manage their own offense, because offense has a greater effect on the battlefield than reactive strategies.

In the MMO sense of the terms, every D&D class is an off-tank/DPS, to varying degrees of "off-tank" or "DPS".

[Caedwyr]

Okay, I'll approach this from a different perspective. In WoW player versus player fights are generally very short. With no aggro, every character needs to manage their own survival in this ultra-deadly environment. These circumstances are highly analogous to the situation you've outlined above with regard to D&D.

However, if you look a bit closer at how PVP ends up working, classes highly effective in 1 on 1 PvP tend to not do as well in team PvP. Classes that rule supreme in the 2v2 bracket do not necessarily dominate in 3v3 or 5v5. This is largely because with a wider range of classes, abilities and possible roles that can be filled mean that classes can support one another. The top PvP groups are the ones that work as teams and tend to contain a broad range of classes, and not just 5x the 1 on 1 PVP dominating class.

From these results, you'd think one would draw the assumption that class synergies are important. If they were not as you have claimed in your post, then the dominating PVP teams would be made up of whatever class dominates 1 on 1 PvP.

I am not denying the fact that balancing classes in a solo situation may be useful, but since this is a group game, balancing classes as part of a group is a more useful measure and will result in a less unbalanced game as a whole. I've seen far too many examples of a broken game when balancing the classes singly in a vacuum goes too far.

[A Man In Black]

Again, WOW PVP is still dissimilar because healing is incredibly powerful in a way D&D healing is not, so you still have a group strategy that doesn't translate to solo play. Also, WOW PVP has some goofy CC interdependence junk that doesn't translate to D&D, a system that exists specifically so you don't just toss the three strongest classes into a 3v3 team and call it a day. (Incidentally, most 3v3 teams that aren't RMP are just made of whatever classes dominate 1v1 play.) WOW also has a number of procced (meaning they happen without taking extra time in combat) vulnerabilities and buffs, which is also not a system replicated in 3e.

You keep talking about synergy in other games, but where's this synergy in D&D? Classes don't generate aggro, few buffs are worth casting unless they are self-buffs (a design failure of the buff spells but oh well), healing is so weak as to be an out-of-combat action... How do classes meaningfully synergize other than focusing fire or flanking? What synergies of a group game are missing from SGTs?

[Dazylar]

Can someone define those online gaming acronyms for me please? I can't follow the latest shift in the discussion. I'm talking about:

aggro
DPS
CC interdependence
RMP

Sorry, I'm just not familiar with these terms. If there's a site to linkify all of that on one page without me trawling some acronym database that'd be great. Ta!

[pjackson]

Matt Devney wrote:

Can someone define those online gaming acronyms for me please? I can't follow the latest shift in the discussion. I'm talking about:

aggro
DPS
CC interdependence
RMP

Sorry, I'm just not familiar with these terms. If there's a site to linkify all of that on one page without me trawling some acronym database that'd be great. Ta!

Aggro - each monster has a list of how much it hates each member of the party and attacks the one it hates the most. "Tanks" aim to generate the most aggro/hate so as to be the one being attacked and thus protect the others (squishies).

DPS = Damage Per Second - A DPS class is one focused on causing as much damage as quickly as possible. The best generally have poor defense.

[Callous Jack]

wraithstrike wrote:

So if we say blasting is bad, monks suck, and so on(other common notions) it does not mean none of us ever blast, or play a monk. We are saying its not the optimal thing to do.

That's fine but don't be surprised when people continue to glaze over and skip your posts once they see your name/avatar.

[Mirror, Mirror]

Callous Jack wrote:

That's fine but don't be surprised when people continue to glaze over and skip your posts once they see your name/avatar.

Isn't that attitude rather counter-productive? If you only want to hear what you already believe to be true, why not just sit in a room and talk to yourself? Why go to a public messageboard and glaze other other's posts?

[pjackson]

Caedwyr wrote:

I am not denying the fact that balancing classes in a solo situation may be useful, but since this is a group game, balancing classes as part of a group is a more useful measure and will result in a less unbalanced game as a whole. I've seen far too many examples of a broken game when balancing the classes singly in a vacuum goes too far.

D&D has many advantages over MMOs. The monsters can be more intelligent. The situations and fights can be more variable. Class and group make up can be more variable.

I have never seen anyone try to play in a MMO "tank" role in D&D. It is just too silly an idea. Combat is just too dangerous for anyone to aim deliberately to take hits.
I have seen attempts to play like a MMO healer, which did not work well at all, as healing is just not good enough for that.

I play EQ2, and have an enchanter (illusionist). In groups an illusionist can turn a fight that could not be won into an easy win, though they are rarely given the option as most people prefer easier quicker fights. Solo they can kill mobs and clear zones that no other class can, though very slowly. For raids even the standard mobs get immunities to enchanter abilities (also known as Crowd Control - CC) after being affected and many are completely immune, since allowing mobs to be permantly stunned. dazed, or mezzed would make the fights too easy.

Battle field control is D&Ds equivalent and in 3.5 the "God" wizards could do what the EQ2 enchanter dream off - rendering the monsters helpless so that they can be easily be disposed off by pets/party members.

There are no defined roles in D&D (excepting 4e) and that is a good thing. Players can play the characters they want, usually some form f hero or anti-hero. Most players want to feel that they can do that without help. Certainly they can't depend on there being someone around to help them.

3.0 and 3.5 were balanced on the idea of a standard group, and that did not work well. They seems to have been an aim of giving clerics lots of cool toys to make the class more popular than in 2e, probably thinking that they would be limited by the need to heal. But healing is a poor tactic, killing the mobs fast before they cause damage is better, and clerics turned out to be very good at that. The wizard/sorcerer appears to have been based on the 2e idea of wizard as artillery, but the change to saving throws and increase in monster hit points meant that they actually had a much stronger tactic of SODs in 3.0, which was toned back somewhat in 3.5, but still damage causing spells were weak.
Fighters and rogues were balanced against the healbot cleric and blaster mage, and lacking the options that the wide selection of spells gave clerics and mages they got left behind.

But 3.0 anf 3.5 are not broken, because all that is needed is for the DM to balance the game for his players and his characters. Since players can vary a lot it is necessary for the DM to do such balancing, evne if the classes were perfectly well balanced. So a balanced ruleset isn't that important, but knowing how a class can be unbalanced is very useful information for a DM.

[DeathQuaker]

Context is everything.

If someone posts "I don't think x ability works the way it should," and then provides an example, based on ACTUAL gameplay that really, really happened (rather than some imagined, idealized void) where the numbers are shown as part of this in-game example--then the numbers do their job because they're helping to illustrate the point being discussed. Likewise, in any detailed discussion where a lot of possibilities are being played out, numbers and statistics can help illustrate how a certain game mechanic does or doesn't work in specific situations.

However, if someone posts, for example, "The Foo Class is awful because it doesn't deal as much damage as the Bar class; look at these numbers!" then it's not very helpful. Because damage is only one result, and the Foo Class may do lots of other things that makes it not very awful at all. When you start using numbers to in fact SKEW the data, or favor certain factors of a mechanic instead of others, it's not useful in a game where many things happen, and (to continue the example) dealing damage in combat is only one of those very many things. Sure, it's FUN to calculate DPS and other things, and as long as you're clear that FUN is what you're about, great. The thing is, a lot of time (at least in my personal experience) that stuff flies out the window anyway when you sit down at the table and start rolling dice--so offering damage or any other single statistic out as a viable example for why a, for example, "class is terrible," just doesn't hold a lot of water.

Tabletop RPGs are very complex, far more complex than any video game, because the human factor and the story/setting factor and the roleplay factor cannot be simulated by numbers. Numbers are useful to illustrate certain points about game mechanics, but that is all, and like all tools, must be used wisely and judiciously.

[Callous Jack]

Mirror, Mirror wrote:

Callous Jack wrote:

That's fine but don't be surprised when people continue to glaze over and skip your posts once they see your name/avatar.

Isn't that attitude rather counter-productive? If you only want to hear what you already believe to be true, why not just sit in a room and talk to yourself? Why go to a public messageboard and glaze other other's posts?

Depending on the writer, it's can actually be interesting to read their thoughts on some mechanic's finer details, whether I agree with him/her or not. They do a good job explaining their point without the bluster, the poor mathematics and the penchant for rambling. But I find many people don't do that, they like to bludgeon the conversation with long-winded diatribes and hyperbole and that can be pretty boring to read (even if they are right). I have a limited amount of time to surf these boards, why would I spend it sifting through that?

[Evil Lincoln]

PJackson and Deathquaker write smart things.

[A Man In Black]

Matt Devney wrote:

Can someone define those online gaming acronyms for me please? I can't follow the latest shift in the discussion. I'm talking about:

aggro
DPS
CC interdependence
RMP

Sorry, I'm just not familiar with these terms. If there's a site to linkify all of that on one page without me trawling some acronym database that'd be great. Ta!

To shorten the WOW PVP discussion for non WOW nerds, you can just take "Again, WOW PVP is still dissimilar because healing is incredibly powerful in a way D&D healing is not, so you still have a group strategy that doesn't translate to solo play" and add "Also, WOW PVP classes work together in ways that D&D PVP classes do not."

Quote:

However, if someone posts, for example, "The Foo Class is awful because it doesn't deal as much damage as the Bar class; look at these numbers!" then it's not very helpful. Because damage is only one result, and the Foo Class may do lots of other things that makes it not very awful at all. When you start using numbers to in fact SKEW the data, or favor certain factors of a mechanic instead of others, it's not useful in a game where many things happen, and (to continue the example) dealing damage in combat is only one of those very many things. Sure, it's FUN to calculate DPS and other things, and as long as you're clear that FUN is what you're about, great. The thing is, a lot of time (at least in my personal experience) that stuff flies out the window anyway when you sit down at the table and start rolling dice--so offering damage or any other single statistic out as a viable example for why a, for example, "class is terrible," just doesn't hold a lot of water.

That's, um, nice, but if someone is omitting some major part of a class's abilities from an analysis, that's not a problem with theoretical analysis in general, that's a problem with that particular analysis. When a class's only combat contribution is damage, and that damage is low, then it's fair to say that that class has major issues contributing to combat.

Practical experience often isn't useful to try and establish that because GMs will generally give lagging players (due to skill, luck, or game imbalance) boosts, either by fudged numbers or special magic items/class abilities/rules, to bump them up. If 3e were better balanced, then you'd remove a measure of that burden from the GM.

[Anburaid]

<tekken announcer voice>
GAMISTS vs SIMUATIONALISTS with narrativst on the sidelines, FIGHT!

</tekken announcer voice>

[Marshall Jansen]

Matt Devney wrote:

Can someone define those online gaming acronyms for me please? I can't follow the latest shift in the discussion. I'm talking about:

aggro
DPS
CC interdependence
RMP

Sorry, I'm just not familiar with these terms. If there's a site to linkify all of that on one page without me trawling some acronym database that'd be great. Ta!

In addition to the definitions of aggro and DPS given,

CC: Crowd Control, the ability to cause a player (or monster) to lose control of it's interactions, such as Fear, Polymorph, Sap, Stun, Entangle.

CC interdependence: using multiple classes with complementary crowd control abilities to keep a key opponent out of control of their character long enough to kill others in the group.

RMP: Rogue/Mage/Priest, a 3-person arena team build using the stealth, burst damage, and Crowd Control of the rogue, the Crowd Control and Burst of the mage, and the Crowd Control and Healing of the priest to win fights. You lock down the biggest threat, kill the healer, or lock down the healer, burst down the threat, or what have you.

[A Man In Black]

Anburaid wrote:

<tekken announcer voice>

GAMISTS vs SIMUATIONALISTS with narrativst on the sidelines, FIGHT!

</tekken announcer voice>

This isn't gamism versus simulationism; both of those approaches can benefit from theoretical analysis. Gamists do theoretical analysis to make sure the goals of the game are met (in this case, balance between options), simulationists do theoretical analysis to make sure that the simulation approximates reality.

What your goals should be is a separate debate from debating how best to evaluate the effectiveness of a game in accomplishing those goals.

[Tzace]

wraithstrike wrote:

Some times when my fellow boardites, yes I have labeled you with a made up name, start discussing something that leads to numbers someone comes in and talks to us like we don't know the game is more than numbers, and that we don't know the best option is not the only option.

We know this, but when we are having these discussion it is under the intent that the DM will not pull punches, regardless of whether or not any of us would in an actual game. Why? Believe it or not there are DM's that try to play with 100% efficiency every time, and your fun is not an option so they won't hold back one bit. I think that is the minority, but that opinion is neither here nor there.

Another reason is that to assume any amount of mercy will be given brings in to many variables.

So if we say blasting is bad, monks suck, and so on(other common notions) it does not mean none of us ever blast, or play a monk. We are saying its not the optimal thing to do.

PS:I only made this post so I would not have to repeat it if it came up again. It's only something for me to link too.

I have been guilty of chiming in with the suggestion of "forget the math" but I think that it's important to take a step back sometimes and recognize when it's worth getting crunchy and when it isn't. Away from the table I will agonize over making my character as optimal as possible, but it always has to serve the RP or what's the point?

As for the DM for whom fun is not an option: what are you doing in THAT game? Walk away, sir.

As levels advance and powers shift, players need to recognize their roles in a party. If you aren't very good at killing undead, and the problem is undead, do something else! Find a way to do what you ARE good at. That's the way to conquer a vicious DM; don't respond to the hazards in a predictable way.

[Dazylar]

Marshall Jansen wrote:

In addition to the definitions of aggro and DPS given,

<definitions snipped>

Ta! Makes a lot of sense now.

[DeathQuaker]

A Man In Black wrote:

Quote:

However, if someone posts, for example, "The Foo Class is awful because it doesn't deal as much damage as the Bar class; look at these numbers!" then it's not very helpful. Because damage is only one result, and the Foo Class may do lots of other things that makes it not very awful at all. When you start using numbers to in fact SKEW the data, or favor certain factors of a mechanic instead of others, it's not useful in a game where many things happen, and (to continue the example) dealing damage in combat is only one of those very many things. Sure, it's FUN to calculate DPS and other things, and as long as you're clear that FUN is what you're about, great. The thing is, a lot of time (at least in my personal experience) that stuff flies out the window anyway when you sit down at the table and start rolling dice--so offering damage or any other single statistic out as a viable example for why a, for example, "class is terrible," just doesn't hold a lot of water.

That's, um, nice, but if someone is omitting some major part of a class's abilities from an analysis, that's not a problem with theoretical analysis in general, that's a problem with that particular analysis.

Yes, that was exactly the point I was making, based in the larger context of my entire post. Thanks for your agreement.

Quote:

When a class's only combat contribution is damage, and that damage is low, then it's fair to say that that class has major issues...

In the D&D/PFRPG that I play, I don't know of any class where that is the case, though it's certainly an important factor--but still one of many--for some. Besides which, "damage" was just an example--in fact I repeat the word "example" at least three times in that paragraph you quoted. I was talking about a broader idea and used an example to help illustrate it, not start an argument about that specific thing.

Once again: context is everything.

[LazarX]

wraithstrike wrote:

Some times when my fellow boardites, yes I have labeled you with a made up name, start discussing something that leads to numbers someone comes in and talks to us like we don't know the game is more than numbers, and that we don't know the best option is not the only option.

We know this, but when we are having these discussion it is under the intent that the DM will not pull punches, regardless of whether or not any of us would in an actual game. Why? Believe it or not there are DM's that try to play with 100% efficiency every time, and your fun is not an option so they won't hold back one bit. I think that is the minority, but that opinion is neither here nor there.

I've seen those DMs.. and I avoid them like the plague they are. You can't build a ruleset that's proof against abusive DM's or abusive players. Having fun is a cooperative effort, the players need to have a certain amount of trust in thier DM and the DM's have to remember that working on some level with your players means a better time for all.

If it's a home campaign, get your players involved in some of the creative process. if it's a network game remember that you'll be having your time on the other side of the screen as well.

[Ashiel]

Caedwyr wrote:

Okay, I'll approach this from a different perspective. In WoW player versus player fights are generally very short. With no aggro, every character needs to manage their own survival in this ultra-deadly environment. These circumstances are highly analogous to the situation you've outlined above with regard to D&D.

However, if you look a bit closer at how PVP ends up working, classes highly effective in 1 on 1 PvP tend to not do as well in team PvP. Classes that rule supreme in the 2v2 bracket do not necessarily dominate in 3v3 or 5v5. This is largely because with a wider range of classes, abilities and possible roles that can be filled mean that classes can support one another. The top PvP groups are the ones that work as teams and tend to contain a broad range of classes, and not just 5x the 1 on 1 PVP dominating class.

From these results, you'd think one would draw the assumption that class synergies are important. If they were not as you have claimed in your post, then the dominating PVP teams would be made up of whatever class dominates 1 on 1 PvP.

I am not denying the fact that balancing classes in a solo situation may be useful, but since this is a group game, balancing classes as part of a group is a more useful measure and will result in a less unbalanced game as a whole. I've seen far too many examples of a broken game when balancing the classes singly in a vacuum goes too far.

First off, brofist for a fellow gamer who appreciates some of the WoW-dynamics and how it relates to good gameplay. Good show.

A Man In Black wrote:

Again, WOW PVP is still dissimilar because healing is incredibly powerful in a way D&D healing is not, so you still have a group strategy that doesn't translate to solo play. Also, WOW PVP has some goofy CC interdependence junk that doesn't translate to D&D, a system that exists specifically so you don't just toss the three strongest classes into a 3v3 team and call it a day. (Incidentally, most 3v3 teams that aren't RMP are just made of whatever classes dominate 1v1 play.) WOW also has a number of procced (meaning they happen without taking extra time in combat) vulnerabilities and buffs, which is also not a system replicated in 3e.

Secondly, this. So much this. Healing in WoW is actually really awesome and good. I play a priest in WoW, and I love running dungeons and I love PvP. My brother plays a Warrior and the pair of us have been absolutely frightening in world-PvP while we were just adventuring (we've taken groups of equal-level players that were twice our size). But you sure as hell will not do that in D&D. It's a pain I've had to accept in D&D.

Want a great example? Take a party of 5 characters. Say Bard/Cleric/Paladin/Wizard/Druid vs a party composed of the same thing. This represents a very diverse party with a good mixture of options, and party vs party combat is not something uncommon in D&D at all (heck, even in my copy of OSRIC, it discusses encountering other adventuring parties as wandering enemies/NPCs) and represents a solid encounter (well built encounters with monstrous NPCs often include a mixture of enemies who preform different tactical roles during a combat; such as a group of demons that include succubi, vrocks, and babau).

Now pit them against each other, and run that a few times. Have one group try to use healing as a primary tactic, while the other group does everything they can to beat the ever-loving snot out of the other, and see how that goes most of the time. One of the few times that healing is actually all that useful is if you're trying to keep someone up so they can take an action that will win the battle for you. But most classes in D&D are actually very competent.

Most of the time, the aggressive party will crush the heals-a-lot party, because the heals-a-lot party is down at least 1 member in the action economy trying to heal through incoming damage and effects and just cannot keep up. The more healers you add, the faster you lose.

Now if healing were more viable like it is in WoW (in WoW, you can restore goo-gobs of HP with some heals) then we'd be able to talk. If the cleric could cast a spell an cause himself to release a wave of healing that affected all his allies passively, each round, for like 20 HP, then he becomes target #1 (I'd Advise Heightened Sanctuary if you could do this) or you could literally remove the damage that someone took during the round (I mentioned heals that heal HP for around 10 HP/caster level limited by spell level earlier), or even if you could provide bubbles to shield people from damage (say the cleric formed a barrier that blocks the first 30 points of damage that the wizard takes), and suddenly healing would be awesome. You would have to pace yourself, and you'd need to dismantle the healer before you could get your bleed effects and big guns to stick.

Personally, in a theater where healing is more viable, then we could get a lot more interest and mileage out of damage over time effects. Spells and effects that deal marginal damage round to round are less popular because burst damage is superior in the extreme; but if burst damage could get wiped clean easily enough, then thousand-cut tactics would become more appealing as well (dealing 40 damage at once only to have it wiped by the cleric might not be as effective as stacking DoTs that deal 10 damage per round but force the cleric to keep healing lest their HP drop to a point they can be one-shot by a big burst).

Having ranged heals would be nice too. In WoW, Shamans have spells like Chain Healing (you heal one person for a sexy amount, then it arcs to new targets, healing a bit less each time), while priests have Hymn of Hope (a long-ish cast time spell that heals the entire group with a nice little burst heal). Druids in WoW have tons of heal over time effects, which you cast and then they keep healing in the coming rounds unless they are dispelled.

Quote:

You keep talking about synergy in other games, but where's this synergy in D&D? Classes don't generate aggro, few buffs are worth casting unless they are self-buffs (a design failure of the buff spells but oh well), healing is so weak as to be an out-of-combat action... How do classes meaningfully synergize other than focusing fire or flanking? What synergies of a group game are missing from SGTs?

This is a big problem. I encourage teamwork and tactics heavily, but there is definitely a very large gap in the number of defensive teamwork options. Most effective teamwork options consist primarily of focus-firing, buffs that make killing more effective (like haste), or debuff bombing (most common non-damage teamwork, which is also generally offensive).

It would be very nice to have more good buffs, ranged heals and buffs, and so forth. I'll write some and post them here.