Maredudd |
Sorry for the interruption folks!
OneWinged4ngel, I am one of the publisher liaison's for PCGen and would like to talk t you about your "Rebalanced" material . . .
Please contact me at maredudd@blackroot.org
Thanks
Eric C. Smith
PR Silverback
PCGen Project
P.S. Now back to you're regularly schedule discussion . . .
Majuba |
Is "Balance" really all that important?
In a game with an exponential power curve, simply yes. Gaps in power are *fine*, and will actually be rather campaign dependent at times. However a persistent difference that grows exponentially can leave a Gap Chasm between players that isn't fun for either.
Krome |
I've played lots of roleplaying games. I never did understand the obsession with "game balance". The thief isn't as good at fighting as the fighter. The fighter isn't as sneaky as the thief. It's all in how you play. If something actually does disrupt the game, a decent DM should be able to handle it in a creative way.
I thing overemphasizing balance issues leads to one conclusion: A game that doesn't feel like D&D.
Coming in very late in the discussion.
Your example is a perfect example of balance issues. The PfRPG rogue is arguably a better fighter than a fighter. [See many fighter related topics all over the boards]
A decent DM should be able to handle it. But if you know womething is broken, why publish it that way? Why not fix it so the DM does not have to? If I want the DM to fix everything, just flip a coin when playing and run with that.
BabbageUK |
In answer to the original OP - balance is important, but not the way Wizards are doing it. I consider classes balanced if they have their own moment to shine - when they stride ahead of the rest for whatever reason. Wizards seem to be focussed on the battle mat and combat generally, so if you can't shine there - you're not 'balanced'.
As for the Diplomacy skill I never had a problem with it. That's probably because I don't care what the rules say - to get anyone from 'Indifferent' to 'Fanatical' would take a damn site longer than a few minutes, and a lot more than just talking to them. If it were that easy, wouldn't there be armies of fanatics headed by a high level bard everywhere?
Rules and realism don't often mix, so a healthy dose of common sense is called for at times. Ask us Yorkshiremen, we're good at common sense! ;)
Krome |
In answer to the original OP - balance is important, but not the way Wizards are doing it. I consider classes balanced if they have their own moment to shine - when they stride ahead of the rest for whatever reason. Wizards seem to be focussed on the battle mat and combat generally, so if you can't shine there - you're not 'balanced'.
As for the Diplomacy skill I never had a problem with it. That's probably because I don't care what the rules say - to get anyone from 'Indifferent' to 'Fanatical' would take a damn site longer than a few minutes, and a lot more than just talking to them. If it were that easy, wouldn't there be armies of fanatics headed by a high level bard everywhere?
Rules and realism don't often mix, so a healthy dose of common sense is called for at times. Ask us Yorkshiremen, we're good at common sense! ;)
We've never even had to make Diplomacy rolls. We have to roleplay it out, and that usually determines what happens. Too many people play roLLplaying instead of roLEplaying. But what ever floats your boat.
Dread |
Dread wrote:
agreed....but Im not for the controlled lockstep that 4e is...rather give me a psuedo balanced game like 3.5 (or 3.5P now) and let me do my own flare to make sure the games are fun and balanced.:D
Oh, I agree. Fascilitating creative freedom is at least as important as balance. You don't have to create a controlled lockstep to maintain balance, though. And 4e isn't balanced, so I really wish people would stop acting like it was and then blaming 4e's faults on "balance" when that has nothing at all to do with it. :-\
There is a *huge* difference between saying "how can I balance these two options" and "hey, why worry about balancing these options when we can just reduce it to one option?"
hahaha, yes...4e really isnt as balanced as it could be, however....they claim that the changes made were to create that very effect.....to me claiming it is saying its true, "I live therefore I am", yanno?
Anyway, I think we agree on the fundamental issue that the reality (or semblance thereof) of Balance really lies in the hands of the DM and not in the system...all the system can do is provide rules and guidelines viable enough as to give the DM the tools necessary to maintain that illusion of balance. ;)
Chris Brown 66 |
BabbageUK wrote:We've never even had to make Diplomacy rolls. We have to roleplay it out, and that usually determines what happens. Too many people play roLLplaying instead of roLEplaying. But what ever floats your boat.In answer to the original OP - balance is important, but not the way Wizards are doing it. I consider classes balanced if they have their own moment to shine - when they stride ahead of the rest for whatever reason. Wizards seem to be focussed on the battle mat and combat generally, so if you can't shine there - you're not 'balanced'.
As for the Diplomacy skill I never had a problem with it. That's probably because I don't care what the rules say - to get anyone from 'Indifferent' to 'Fanatical' would take a damn site longer than a few minutes, and a lot more than just talking to them. If it were that easy, wouldn't there be armies of fanatics headed by a high level bard everywhere?
Rules and realism don't often mix, so a healthy dose of common sense is called for at times. Ask us Yorkshiremen, we're good at common sense! ;)
Krome, to quote your earlier post "A decent DM should be able to handle it. But if you know womething is broken, why publish it that way?"
Just because you, as a decent DM, know how to do Diplomacy a good way (via roleplaying), doesn't mean they should publish a broken version of it. Common sense only works when the "Solomon" DM is in charge. When the new DM starts the game, they fall back to the rules. When the rules are broken, there's a problem. Of course, I say go to the skills and feats post and lets talk Diplomacy.
I guess that's the main thing I've seen in this post so far. There is a huge difference between "broken" and "imbalanced". Imbalanced isn't a big deal, it makes the game fun, but broken is broken. I think the goal of Pathfinder is to fix the broken stuff in 3.5, make the "common houserules" into smoother rules, and keep the game moving so there's not an hour long session of "Ok, Mike, it's your turn."
Krome |
I agree 100%. The comment about the DM being able to handle it was in refrence to the OP.
The DM's job is handle making the game enjoyable for his/her players (did you see that I was politically correct with the gender thing). About the rules being broken, also applies to balance. If you know something is really unbalanced, why publish it that way?
Paizo is trying to fix the broken and seriously unbalanced rules. ANd there are some. But to be fair, no matter what happens there will always be broken and unbalanced rules since there are so many different people playing (would be so much easier if everyone just agreed I am always right and my rules are the best) :)
Shadowborn |
I tend to find it frustrating when rules are addressed in order to allow for "balance", then become really silly looking when you shine the light of day on them, like the weapon size rules.
It sounds good on the surface, but then you start thinking about what these weapons are supposed to do and how they're made, and realize that a "small longspear" is an oxymoron of the first water. That was one of the 3.5 "fixes" that never made it into my games.
hida_jiremi |
Does this mean you can't feel good about performing well in combat unless everyone else sucks by comparison?
Absolutely not. Only that everyone should get their own, personal time in the sun. Everyone should be able to do different things, or contribute in different ways, and combat is just one of them. It's unfortunate that it's the only one that the 4th Edition design philosophy really deals with.
I think that I already covered what the "iconic four" do to contribute. To belabor the point slightly, one of the things I try to tell new players in my own games is that you don't have to be doing something every round of every fight to be contributing. You could be conserving resources, staying out of the way of the people who have better-suited abilities. You could be providing a flank, or threatening an enemy, even without attacking. You can be the guy that hides in the corner in a fight, but rocks out in negotiations and diplomacy. You can be waiting and watching, looking for the way to win that doesn't involve comparing numbers.
You don't have to be the absolute best at the thing you do: you just have to do it well and differently enough that when the thing you're good at comes up, you get to feel proud about it. That's one of the benefits and penalties of a class-based RPG: niche protection. You just need to decide what those niches mean, and offer enough challenges to make all the ones you have in your party valuable.
I entirely agree that all base classes need to have things that make them appealing. That's what balance means to me, not that everyone should be equally good all the time. I think that most roleplayers are mature enough that their feelings aren't hurt when another player takes the limelight for a battle (or even a whole session) as long as they get their turn at some point.
Jeremy Puckett
Brian Brus |
Balance is far more than 'does the Thief fight as a good as a fighter'. Its more "Is my Thief as important to the party as the fighter is". In recent years theres been a huge blurring of what makes a character important or not. ...
I agree that "importance" is found in the eye of the beholder. A relative sense of PC importance is derived from a good GM's interaction with the player, both of their styles of play, and the solidity of the player's concept for his PC.
When I was a kid playing 1st or 2nd edition D&D, I never had a problem feeling important in the game, regardless of the class I played. There were many games in which my illusionist still had spells left over or my thief/cleric spent an inordinate amount of time *avoiding* combat and trying to convince the party members to pay for his healing services. ... Balanced? Didn't know, didn't care. Fun and sense of importance? Yep.
In this era of MMO pseudo-RPG systems, it feels as though too many gamers have narrowed their perspective of the experience to pure combat scenarios. And if that's what they're focused on, "balance" between classes becomes ridiculously important and skews the original D&D experience.
Kelvin273 |
Wasn't D&D originally a spinoff of a wargame? Given that history, it's highly unlikely that the "original D&D experience" was this group theater exercise that some people seem to assume. I think once 3.x went "back to the dungeon" for combat-heavy scenarios, that choice requires some kind of balance in combat. The kind of balance a lot of people on these boards talk about, where it's okay not to be good in combat if you're good at other things, only works for campaigns with an even distribution of combat, problem solving, and social interaction. If one of those aspects is assumed to take center stage in the default campaign model, then all characters have to be decent in that particular part of the game.
Zombieneighbours |
BabbageUK wrote:We've never even had to make Diplomacy rolls. We have to roleplay it out, and that usually determines what happens. Too many people play roLLplaying instead of roLEplaying. But what ever floats your boat.In answer to the original OP - balance is important, but not the way Wizards are doing it. I consider classes balanced if they have their own moment to shine - when they stride ahead of the rest for whatever reason. Wizards seem to be focussed on the battle mat and combat generally, so if you can't shine there - you're not 'balanced'.
As for the Diplomacy skill I never had a problem with it. That's probably because I don't care what the rules say - to get anyone from 'Indifferent' to 'Fanatical' would take a damn site longer than a few minutes, and a lot more than just talking to them. If it were that easy, wouldn't there be armies of fanatics headed by a high level bard everywhere?
Rules and realism don't often mix, so a healthy dose of common sense is called for at times. Ask us Yorkshiremen, we're good at common sense! ;)
Your mistaking playing a role for acting and being a personally good public speaker.
Stratos |
Balance can mean many things.
In one sense, balance contains elements of intruige, combat, and world interaction (READ: non-social skill usage). In this case, balance should be relatively strict. Characters may well appear useles in combat, but this is fine if they excel in world interaction or intrigue to counter that deficiency.
Balance can also be encompassing simply combat. Now, balance is of extreme importance to the game in the following sense:
The game should orbit around a focus of balance.
The radius of the orbit should scale directly with the amount of entropy players like. This is facoring their enjoyment into the game. Yep, that natural 20 just rolled... 3 times - you die. That would be a large radius. A small radius would be like a chess game. Ask the party what they would like before they begin.
There was the thought physical characters should be "overpowered" at lower levels and weak at higher levels - the reverse true for magic classes. The whole workforce-vs-university idea with slaray used as an analogy for potency is at work here. Many don't care for this idea. Those who do, however, must factor balance around it as well.
In any case, the set of classes should be balanced with rerspect to one another, however you care to define the word. This is the job of the game designers. In my opinion, Pathfinder's team is quite competent - they are making the game much improved over 3.5. You may not agree with their concept of balance, but they are adept at holding their own definition to a strict line.
The Real Orion |
There are a few problems with "balance" as it's currently understood by for WotC and many power gamers. First, it's really just code for "can my character kill as many monsters as yours?" It's combat-oriented and self-centred. It's all about keeping up with the Joneses, except that the Joneses are your friends, who you've probably been gaming with for years.
Second, there's a bizarre, spurious belief that a "perfect" game system exists in which we can mathematically model exactly how useful each class will be, therefore we end up with systems that are more and more funnelled towards combat alone, because that's the part of the game that you can model mathematically.
Third, it assumes, and therefore encourages, players who set out to "break" the system, exploiting every loophole and combination. It sets a tone in which min/maxing is not just allowed, but assumed to be required (i.e., "If I don't arrange my fighter's feats perfectly, I'm screwed at the gaming table.").
I won't argue that classes, spells, and feats should be tossed in with no eye to a general sense of their power level, but the game philosophy needs to encourage players to either (a) just stop with all the stupid power gaming and enjoy your character, or (b) admit that you're playing a particular style (called "power gaming") and that if you're good at it, you'll always find a way to "break" the system, so whining when the system breaks indicates a lack of understanding of simple causality. It's like pounding on your TV with a hammer and then saying, "Stupid TV... broke after four hits..."
So yeah, designers have to have an eye towards balance (I do in my pet system), but if you become totally obsessed with it, if you treat it like the Holy Grail of role-playing that will come and save us from our own style of play, the you'll always be disappointed.
DeadDMWalking |
Wasn't D&D originally a spinoff of a wargame? Given that history, it's highly unlikely that the "original D&D experience" was this group theater exercise that some people seem to assume. I think once 3.x went "back to the dungeon" for combat-heavy scenarios, that choice requires some kind of balance in combat. The kind of balance a lot of people on these boards talk about, where it's okay not to be good in combat if you're good at other things, only works for campaigns with an even distribution of combat, problem solving, and social interaction. If one of those aspects is assumed to take center stage in the default campaign model, then all characters have to be decent in that particular part of the game.
Ummm... Having played all edition of D&D, let me assure you that the original D&D didn't have as much with it's wargaming roots as even 3.5 does. Playing in 3.5 without a battlemat is basically impossible. Determining mechanics like Attacks of Opportunity require that you know where enemies are in relation to each other.
1st and 2nd edition tended to encourage a more 'organic' experience. For example, when the wizard tried to get a fireball off, the DM would tell him how many people were in the area of effect. This meant that DMs had much more power and the game was less 'fair' since not everyone could play by the same 'rules'. But as far as the emphasis on combat, that was not as much the case in earlier editions. Puzzles (which could not be solved by rolls of the dice) or diplomatic situations (again, had to be role-played) were major components of the challenges. In 3.5, however, most puzzles and role-playing situations default to a roll of the dice so as not to 'punish' players that are extremely socially inept but are playing a 15th level bard with a 28 Charisma and +45 Diplomacy modifier.
Now, I do think that the nature of the game requires that everyone be able to contribute in combat, and I'm okay with certain classes outshining others in their particular situation. For example, I don't mind the rogue doing more average damage than a fighter, but I think it is too easy for the rogue to get their sneak attack damage. I think that in certain combats certain characters should do really well. Golems are great for barbarians, undead for clerics, etc, etc. So, there should be an eye toward 'balance', but there are different ways of achieving it. A fighter and a rogue in a toe-to-toe fight should always go to the fighter - but the rogue shouldn't get stuck in that situation. With his ability to slip around unnoticed the rogue may have the option to 'defeat' the fighter by simply avoiding him and achieving his true objective further on....
I think the question about 'what is balanced' is tough, and while every class should be able to contribute in some form in every combat, I don't think that should equate to being exactly equal in combat.
Dread |
Wasn't D&D originally a spinoff of a wargame? Given that history, it's highly unlikely that the "original D&D experience" was this group theater exercise that some people seem to assume. I think once 3.x went "back to the dungeon" for combat-heavy scenarios, that choice requires some kind of balance in combat. The kind of balance a lot of people on these boards talk about, where it's okay not to be good in combat if you're good at other things, only works for campaigns with an even distribution of combat, problem solving, and social interaction. If one of those aspects is assumed to take center stage in the default campaign model, then all characters have to be decent in that particular part of the game.
no...this is a common mistake among folks who werent around then. Chainmail was a game with rules for medieval miniatures that Gygax and his friends played. When they began to think of how they could blend in the fantasy aspect they began bantering about ideas...and out of those ideas D&D came. It was always created to be an RPG, never created to be a mini's game.
So to call it a spinoff is inaccurate.
Stratos |
There are a few problems with "balance" as it's currently understood by for WotC and many power gamers. First, it's really just code for "can my character kill as many monsters as yours?" It's combat-oriented and self-centred. It's all about keeping up with the Joneses, except that the Joneses are your friends, who you've probably been gaming with for years.
Second, there's a bizarre, spurious belief that a "perfect" game system exists in which we can mathematically model exactly how useful each class will be, therefore we end up with systems that are more and more funnelled towards combat alone, because that's the part of the game that you can model mathematically.
Third, it assumes, and therefore encourages, players who set out to "break" the system, exploiting every loophole and combination. It sets a tone in which min/maxing is not just allowed, but assumed to be required (i.e., "If I don't arrange my fighter's feats perfectly, I'm screwed at the gaming table.").
I won't argue that classes, spells, and feats should be tossed in with no eye to a general sense of their power level, but the game philosophy needs to encourage players to either (a) just stop with all the stupid power gaming and enjoy your character, or (b) admit that you're playing a particular style (called "power gaming") and that if you're good at it, you'll always find a way to "break" the system, so whining when the system breaks indicates a lack of understanding of simple causality. It's like pounding on your TV with a hammer and then saying, "Stupid TV... broke after four hits..."
So yeah, designers have to have an eye towards balance (I do in my pet system), but if you become totally obsessed with it, if you treat it like the Holy Grail of role-playing that will come and save us from our own style of play, the you'll always be disappointed.
A perfect system does exist for the optimization of enjoyment of individual parties. However, the chances of exacting such a system are so small, you should just count them out (limit to 0). This does not mean to forgo balance though; on the contrary, a system designed well will seem nearly perfect - in some circumstances, there may be no quantifiable difference between the two systems.
People (at your table) are humans. Humans are greedy. They want to maximize things. Expect it. Therefore, complex mechanics need to be incorporated to balance the game if you don't like rock/paper/scissors cut-and-dryness. Your mathematical argument is interesting, but the truth is you're not considering everything.
Charisma, for example, is a worthless attribute for many players. A majority of people I've played with have dumped CHA completely if they're not a bard, sorcerer, paladin, or cleric. This means over well of 50% of the people I see immediately put CHA in the back, assigning it the worst roll. Why? For most of these people, CHA doesn't do anything - the skills it assists are very rarely useful in combat, so they feel it has no value to them. However, some people do not feel this way - some put an emphasis on roleplay. Instead of no weight then, CHA carries a good deal. Many players fall in between these two extremes. If you were to consider CHA to have less intrinsic value than the other attributes objectively then, you'd be wrong - some people really to care for it. You must not forget to consider the minority cases - these aren't 1-in-a-million scenarios, by the way.
Similarily, some players don't min/max for combat alone. While you may or may not have played with such players, they do exist. Instead, these players will try to min/max as described in the first sense of balance in my above post. They may be after depth of social interaction or world versatility, but they think beyond how many d6 their sword does for damage.
Hence, with this sense in mind, you're not "breaking" the system by focusing on combat; you're instead specializing in a part of it, perhaps to its maximum potential. If you feel this offsets balance, the solution is natural: Weight another area more. For example, if you would like to see more players caring about their CHA score instead of offloading it instantly, make sure you give them plenty of opportunity - sometimes forced, if necessary - to use/rely on their CHA-based abilities. For roleplay, force them to actually storytell what they are doing. Don't allow "I make a diplomacy check with the king," but instead "King Tenodar, our band of explorers has found a strange and wondrous artifact in the desert; we seek your assistance to...". The alternative to succeeding at winning the king's aid, perhaps of desert guides? Tons of survival, geography, and nature checks to make it to your location, and no assistance in battles to come. This makes the party less powerful in combat with respect to their enemies because the party will consist of a few less people. Also, forcing the skill checks would nudge players to develop in that area as well.
Hence, as long as you keep balance held in a well-directed manner, it is the concept encompassing the bounds of the game which seek to prevent "broken" scenarios. See the orbit analogy in my previous post for further specialization.
eople are greedy. Therefore, they should try to
Jal Dorak |
Piggybacking onto Stratos' post, I would add that it is also the obligation of the DM to provide occasional scenarios where the PCs weaknesses are exploited (especially so if facing highly intelligent villains).
For example, in a recent game one of my players is using a Drow Battle Sorcerer. He excels at combat thanks to a carefully selected collection of combat spells, feats, and a Worg familiar. He points out his many favorable attributes.
The final villain in our last adventure was a Medusa.
The Drow's fortitude save was +2.
Despite huge amounts of hp, AC, and other defensive powers, he went down on the first saving throw. The dwarf barbarian chugged right along, mowing down a Bloodhulk, 4 henchmen, and the medusa.
Every character does something vastly different. I consider this balance, other people do not. The point is understanding the mechanics of the balance and then using that when running a game.
If I was DMing 4th edition, I would exploit weakness by forcing the PCs to expend their higher powers early in a fight on henchmen, saving the villains for when the PCs are weaker. This wouldn't work in 3.5, where PCs have multiple higher abilities, or no limit (fighters).
Kelvin273 |
Kelvin273 wrote:Wasn't D&D originally a spinoff of a wargame? Given that history, it's highly unlikely that the "original D&D experience" was this group theater exercise that some people seem to assume. I think once 3.x went "back to the dungeon" for combat-heavy scenarios, that choice requires some kind of balance in combat. The kind of balance a lot of people on these boards talk about, where it's okay not to be good in combat if you're good at other things, only works for campaigns with an even distribution of combat, problem solving, and social interaction. If one of those aspects is assumed to take center stage in the default campaign model, then all characters have to be decent in that particular part of the game.no...this is a common mistake among folks who werent around then. Chainmail was a game with rules for medieval miniatures that Gygax and his friends played. When they began to think of how they could blend in the fantasy aspect they began bantering about ideas...and out of those ideas D&D came. It was always created to be an RPG, never created to be a mini's game.
So to call it a spinoff is inaccurate.
Actually, the way I always saw the story recounted, first came Chainmail, then a Chainmail fantasy supplement. Then Dave Arneson decided to modify Chainmail + fantasy supplement rules for individual heroes on a quest that involved mostly small scale combats instead of large battles. That modification became Dungeons & Dragons.
It's hard not to call it a spinoff of Chainmail when the White Box actually references Chainmail combat rules (though Arneson had already developed the THAC0 system in that first home campaign). It would have been hard for them to design something "as an RPG" when the concept didn't even exist yet. Heck, the White Box bills itself as "rules for fantastic medieval wargames." This suggests that the game started out as small-scale skirmish wargaming, and that only after players began to identify with their heroes did somebody start to say, "this has developed into something more."
Set |
For me the problem is when 'balance' is equated to mean 'the same.'
A 3.5 Rogue, Wizard and Fighter are completely different in their effectiveness, situationally.
The Fighter is all the time, no conditions apply, steady lowish damage.
With Sneak Attack, the Rogue can do way more damage, but it's very situational, and certain types of mobs, lighting or battlefield conditions can utterly neuter their situational damage advantage.
Wizards can also do some really impressive stuff, compared to the Fighter, but quickly 'blow their wad' and end up throwing daggers and cowering in the back if they don't manage carefully (and stock up on scrolls and wands, requiring them to blow their money and / or item creation feats just to keep up).
Each has it's completely different mechanics, and in battle one of the day, the Wizard might seem terribly overpowered, throwing empowered Scorching Rays around. The Rogue might also seem terribly overpowered, flanking that giant crittable single foe. By the fourth combat of the day, the Wizard might look terribly *underpowered* as the Fighter is still doing the exact same damage he was doing in combat one, and the undead threat turns out to be immune to Sneak Attack, making the Rogue seem similarly ineffectual.
In 4E, every class now has dailies, per encounter and at will powers. They are *very* strictly balanced to be identically useful *in every single encounter.* Everyone uses the same mechanics and this may well be an enormous improvement for sit-down groups of people who don't know each other very well, aren't interested in the concept of teamwork and can't really be bothered with the tactical or strategic micromanagement required of earlier versions of D&D. That sort of stuff *is* hard for some people, and even harder with a group of people you don't know. 4E's conception of balance is much more newbie-friendly and much more accessible to people who want to be doing something every single round, and not having to consider tactically what others are doing. Every class being able to heal itself in some way also helps here, as the individual characters are not strongly dependent on one particular player, and entire teams aren't held hostage to that person making the best tactical healing choice every single round. Instead they can shore up their own hit points, and the cleric player is no longer as pressured to take only the 'best healing spells' like Lesser Vigor or Close Wounds or whatever, nor is he as likely to get yelled at if he decides to attack in a round instead of healing someone.
With the reduced importance of players paying attention to what other players are doing, the party becomes less of a 'team' and more of the fantasy trope of a group of solo warriors doing whatever it is they do best. (As recounted in the tale of Sir Rolande or in Lord of the Rings, where Legolas and Gimli and Aragorn just did their own thing, and never spent a moment's thought on what the other person was doing, other than to make sure they weren't standing within 5' of Gimli, or directly in front of the elf.)
It's less 'we the team' and more 'group of heroes.' More of a mythic Argonauts kinda feel, where the focus is no longer on any one character.
It's certainly one way to 'balance' things, but 3rd edition wasn't exactly a big failure either, so it's clearly not the only way.
I think it is telling that games that make no attempt at balance whatsover haven't stood the test of time. Almost all of the games out there have balance built into them, whether by levels or character points or both. Games with no real balance, such as Villains & Vigilantes (where one rolled 1d6+2 for number of super-powers, and some super-powers were *vastly* better than others, and might even include another 1d6 sub-powers!), are pretty much ancient history, replaced by a half-dozen other superhero game systems that use character points / power points / power levels, etc.
One of the first thing that outrages us, even before we can stamp our little feet, is when something is unfair. If only one of the six people at the table is enjoying his uber-character, and the other five feel like his supporting cast / groupies / cheerleaders, then the game itself isn't really designed to be played by human beings, most of whom don't consider it a productive use of limited entertainment time and budget to stare at the lead dog's butt for four hours and wonder if they'll ever get to be up in front.
Dread |
Dread wrote:Kelvin273 wrote:Wasn't D&D originally a spinoff of a wargame? Given that history, it's highly unlikely that the "original D&D experience" was this group theater exercise that some people seem to assume. I think once 3.x went "back to the dungeon" for combat-heavy scenarios, that choice requires some kind of balance in combat. The kind of balance a lot of people on these boards talk about, where it's okay not to be good in combat if you're good at other things, only works for campaigns with an even distribution of combat, problem solving, and social interaction. If one of those aspects is assumed to take center stage in the default campaign model, then all characters have to be decent in that particular part of the game.no...this is a common mistake among folks who werent around then. Chainmail was a game with rules for medieval miniatures that Gygax and his friends played. When they began to think of how they could blend in the fantasy aspect they began bantering about ideas...and out of those ideas D&D came. It was always created to be an RPG, never created to be a mini's game.
So to call it a spinoff is inaccurate.
Actually, the way I always saw the story recounted, first came Chainmail, then a Chainmail fantasy supplement. Then Dave Arneson decided to modify Chainmail + fantasy supplement rules for individual heroes on a quest that involved mostly small scale combats instead of large battles. That modification became Dungeons & Dragons.
It's hard not to call it a spinoff of Chainmail when the White Box actually references Chainmail combat rules (though Arneson had already developed the THAC0 system in that first home campaign). It would have been hard for them to design something "as an RPG" when the concept didn't even exist yet. Heck, the White Box bills itself as "rules for fantastic medieval wargames." This suggests that the game started out as small-scale skirmish wargaming, and that only after players began to identify with their heroes did somebody...
You heard correct, however....right from the beginning it was more than just a 'wargame'....with rules for 'dungeoning' and inbetween purchase of supplies, and cities....If it was merely a wargame the other aspects would have never been there.
Dread |
For me the problem is when 'balance' is equated to mean 'the same.'
A 3.5 Rogue, Wizard and Fighter are completely different in their effectiveness, situationally.
The Fighter is all the time, no conditions apply, steady lowish damage.
With Sneak Attack, the Rogue can do way more damage, but it's very situational, and certain types of mobs, lighting or battlefield conditions can utterly neuter their situational damage advantage.
Wizards can also do some really impressive stuff, compared to the Fighter, but quickly 'blow their wad' and end up throwing daggers and cowering in the back if they don't manage carefully (and stock up on scrolls and wands, requiring them to blow their money and / or item creation feats just to keep up).
Each has it's completely different mechanics, and in battle one of the day, the Wizard might seem terribly overpowered, throwing empowered Scorching Rays around. The Rogue might also seem terribly overpowered, flanking that giant crittable single foe. By the fourth combat of the day, the Wizard might look terribly *underpowered* as the Fighter is still doing the exact same damage he was doing in combat one, and the undead threat turns out to be immune to Sneak Attack, making the Rogue seem similarly ineffectual.
In 4E, every class now has dailies, per encounter and at will powers. They are *very* strictly balanced to be identically useful *in every single encounter.* Everyone uses the same mechanics and this may well be an enormous improvement for sit-down groups of people who don't know each other very well, aren't interested in the concept of teamwork and can't really be bothered with the tactical or strategic micromanagement required of earlier versions of D&D. That sort of stuff *is* hard for some people, and even harder with a group of people you don't know. 4E's conception of balance is much more newbie-friendly and much more accessible to people who want to be doing something every single round, and not having to consider tactically what others are doing....
I always like to think of D&D characters as military units on the battlefield...It helps keep my mind right on the roles and the expectations of how they will perform.
Fighter- Infantry (holds the line)
Rogue- Special Forces/Scouts (gets the intel/opens the way)
Cleric- Transportation (Keeps the bullets and beans coming so the war doesnt stop)
Wizard- Artillery
Paladin- Armor (Tank Tank Tank)
Ranger- Rangers ;)(Search and Destroy specialists)
Sorcerer- MRLS Artillery (Heavier firepower, but limited resources)
Druid- Air defense Artillery (Close Support)
Barbarian/Monk- Specialist Infantry...whether mech/Airborne/Air Assault
A Wizard with no Fighter in front is just asking to be taken out.
Ive never ever had any player in my campaings say they were sorry they had included a Fighter in the ranks...Maybe its just cause they know Ill get to the spell casters in a harsh way, without that person being a shield.
Kelvin273 |
But, even putting aside the argument that fighters aren't effective line-holders at high levels, the ability to cast defensively in 3.x casts doubt on that paradigm. In older editions, when you couldn't cast spells, period, if an enemy engaged you in melee, that holding the line function was important. Now all the wizard has to do is make a Concentration check (and the high Int virtually guarantees he has the skill points to max it out).
Dread |
assuming the damage done isnt high enough to make that problematic....a high level fighter whosen take some good feats can be pretty vicious....
I dont want to get into a disagreement on this, but if the DM isnt up to the task to make it desirable to have a meat shield around...then hes not much of a DM...
I havent run a party yet that didnt have the Wizard 'wanting' someone between himself and the bad guys.....Most of my players know after a few games...I will find the parties weak spots, and will find a way to exploit them to make the game challenging.
But I guess thats where GM experience matters.
Andre Caceres |
There are a few problems with "balance" as it's currently understood by for WotC and many power gamers. First, it's really just code for "can my character kill as many monsters as yours?" It's combat-oriented and self-centred. It's all about keeping up with the Joneses, except that the Joneses are your friends, who you've probably been gaming with for years.
Second, there's a bizarre, spurious belief that a "perfect" game system exists in which we can mathematically model exactly how useful each class will be, therefore we end up with systems that are more and more funnelled towards combat alone, because that's the part of the game that you can model mathematically.
Third, it assumes, and therefore encourages, players who set out to "break" the system, exploiting every loophole and combination. It sets a tone in which min/maxing is not just allowed, but assumed to be required (i.e., "If I don't arrange my fighter's feats perfectly, I'm screwed at the gaming table.").
I won't argue that classes, spells, and feats should be tossed in with no eye to a general sense of their power level, but the game philosophy needs to encourage players to either (a) just stop with all the stupid power gaming and enjoy your character, or (b) admit that you're playing a particular style (called "power gaming") and that if you're good at it, you'll always find a way to "break" the system, so whining when the system breaks indicates a lack of understanding of simple causality. It's like pounding on your TV with a hammer and then saying, "Stupid TV... broke after four hits..."
So yeah, designers have to have an eye towards balance (I do in my pet system), but if you become totally obsessed with it, if you treat it like the Holy Grail of role-playing that will come and save us from our own style of play, the you'll always be disappointed.
This is very ture. Balance has always been a wired issue coming from an old time Palladium player where Kevin has said right out, sorry not everything nor everyone is equal. Having said that a lot has to do with will everyone have a moment to shine, and most of that falls to the DM. More over there is level balance, and over all balance. Example and I'm sure its been said before.
Fighter starts off bad ass, but about level 10 had less and less effect game wise. However story wise he should be getting on in years so maybe that makes sense.
Wizard starts off s%&*ty, has to use a actual weapon after about two rounds of combat. He ends up arguable the best thing in the game. But that makes sense he can change the laws of reality. Storywise he is now the long beard wizard of classic fantasy. again makes sense.
Cleric is always cool, but he'd backed by the gods.
Now most, not all, who complain that I can't keep my fighter up to 20th level because its a Wizards show now. Or boy my young Harry Potter sucks and gets killed too easily. Are players who
A. don't look at the big picture.
b. don't like D&D fantasy anyways.
c. never get a monment to shine by the DM
I do blame dms a lot because I am one, and have seen over and over again how true this is. For example I have a very enthusiatic group of players who have never played before. They all went for human Fighters or Archers. Magic held no apeal to them, and rogue isn't good for combat. I said fine I'll play a cleric and a wizard for the group. They loved it they got to be heros a lort. As we went up in levels the sweet spot hit they had no complaints, by 15th level they looked at me said your characts are take too much of the game. And that was with me handicapping myself. So I changed the focus of the game to more low magic. It worked. I wish they had learned there lesson and decicded next time to play other things and devote the time to be a wizard or cleric but they didn't.
Moral of the story, no such thing as perfect blance in an RPG.
Mr Baron |
I think balance is very important.
However each of the classes should still feel and play differently, not play the same but just have different feats/abilities. Monster challenge ratings should mean something and relate to how the level of difficulty. I think as you add splat books, classes become unbalanced as the power levels grow beyond what the game was built around.
Kelvin273 |
assuming the damage done isnt high enough to make that problematic....a high level fighter whosen take some good feats can be pretty vicious....
I dont want to get into a disagreement on this, but if the DM isnt up to the task to make it desirable to have a meat shield around...then hes not much of a DM...
I havent run a party yet that didnt have the Wizard 'wanting' someone between himself and the bad guys.....Most of my players know after a few games...I will find the parties weak spots, and will find a way to exploit them to make the game challenging.
But I guess thats where GM experience matters.
Casting defensively allows you to cast in melee without provoking attacks of opportunity. All it takes is a Concentration check (DC 15 + spell level). If you're maxing out Concentration (as any wizard should, given the skill points they get from high Int), this is an extremely makable check at high levels. The only way a melee brute can give itself a decent win percentage is to win initiative and do enough damage to kill the wizard. Now, there are probably some monsters (and a few feat combinations from splatbooks) that can allow this to happen, but a smart wizard puts a good score into Dex and takes Improved Initiative anyway (to get their save-or-dies off before the other side acts). Granted, zero chance beats a small chance, but high-level wizards are hardly helpless sitting ducks when engaged in melee.
And the one problem I have with the DM as the ultimate solution is that the DMG states that hack-and-slash games should follow the rules more closely because they're so mechanically balanced for combat. Basically, they're telling new DMs that they don't need to take special steps to make the fighter relevant because the rules do it for them. It would be one thing if they actually said that fighters are going to be increasingly irrelevant at high levels, and that the DM needs to be aware of that and take steps to alleviate the problem in their game, but this doesn't happen.
Of course, I do have some hope that the Pathfinder spell nerfs will help alleviate the spellcaster imbalance somewhat, though I'm not sure if the approach to powering up the fighter works that well.
Kelvin273 |
The Real Orion wrote:This is very ture. Balance has always been a wired issue coming from an old time...There are a few problems with "balance" as it's currently understood by for WotC and many power gamers. First, it's really just code for "can my character kill as many monsters as yours?" It's combat-oriented and self-centred. It's all about keeping up with the Joneses, except that the Joneses are your friends, who you've probably been gaming with for years.
Second, there's a bizarre, spurious belief that a "perfect" game system exists in which we can mathematically model exactly how useful each class will be, therefore we end up with systems that are more and more funnelled towards combat alone, because that's the part of the game that you can model mathematically.
Third, it assumes, and therefore encourages, players who set out to "break" the system, exploiting every loophole and combination. It sets a tone in which min/maxing is not just allowed, but assumed to be required (i.e., "If I don't arrange my fighter's feats perfectly, I'm screwed at the gaming table.").
I won't argue that classes, spells, and feats should be tossed in with no eye to a general sense of their power level, but the game philosophy needs to encourage players to either (a) just stop with all the stupid power gaming and enjoy your character, or (b) admit that you're playing a particular style (called "power gaming") and that if you're good at it, you'll always find a way to "break" the system, so whining when the system breaks indicates a lack of understanding of simple causality. It's like pounding on your TV with a hammer and then saying, "Stupid TV... broke after four hits..."
So yeah, designers have to have an eye towards balance (I do in my pet system), but if you become totally obsessed with it, if you treat it like the Holy Grail of role-playing that will come and save us from our own style of play, the you'll always be disappointed.
So basically, if you don't like your high-level fighter, play a wizard? :-p This version of magic-uber-alles "D&D fantasy" is viable. It's just that, if magic is supposed to rule everything and non-spellcasters are supposed to be irrelevant, why offer non-spellcasters a PC options. You could just change the name of the game to "Wizards & Werewolves." The back cover text could read like this:
"Wizards & Werewolves lets you play magical heroes in a high fantasy setting. Will you be a wizard, drawing on the arcane secrets of your spellbook, or a sorcerer, using your natural connection to the magic of the world. Will you be a crusading cleric, combining divine magic with martial skill, or a druid, connected with the divine force of nature."
Then you'd have rules for using Leadership to hire fighters as expendable meat shields if you don't have a cleric or druid to be the party tank.
Dread |
Dread wrote:assuming the damage done isnt high enough to make that problematic....a high level fighter whosen take some good feats can be pretty vicious....
I dont want to get into a disagreement on this, but if the DM isnt up to the task to make it desirable to have a meat shield around...then hes not much of a DM...
I havent run a party yet that didnt have the Wizard 'wanting' someone between himself and the bad guys.....Most of my players know after a few games...I will find the parties weak spots, and will find a way to exploit them to make the game challenging.
But I guess thats where GM experience matters.
Casting defensively allows you to cast in melee without provoking attacks of opportunity. All it takes is a Concentration check (DC 15 + spell level). If you're maxing out Concentration (as any wizard should, given the skill points they get from high Int), this is an extremely makable check at high levels. The only way a melee brute can give itself a decent win percentage is to win initiative and do enough damage to kill the wizard. Now, there are probably some monsters (and a few feat combinations from splatbooks) that can allow this to happen, but a smart wizard puts a good score into Dex and takes Improved Initiative anyway (to get their save-or-dies off before the other side acts). Granted, zero chance beats a small chance, but high-level wizards are hardly helpless sitting ducks when engaged in melee.
And the one problem I have with the DM as the ultimate solution is that the DMG states that hack-and-slash games should follow the rules more closely because they're so mechanically balanced for combat. Basically, they're telling new DMs that they don't need to take special steps to make the fighter relevant because the rules do it for them. It would be one thing if they actually said that fighters are going to be increasingly irrelevant at high levels, and that the DM needs to be aware of...
I get what youre saying...but what you arent considering is the checs and balances within the game that very few DM's enforce....
1. Spell Components...Sure The Wizard has a hefty array of spells in his arsenal at high levels, but many of them require odd spell components that have to be obtained.....If you play spell components...then you will see some leveling of the field.
2. Losing XP to do many spells and creating items....Once again if played, then thr fighter may find himself a higher level than the wizard.
3. and probably the most important.....The wizards lack of hit points....its easy to say 'My wizard will cast defensively and take out your fighter...but anything dealing with feats the wzard can do (like take improved initiative)...the fighter can do too...and better. His AC will be better, his damage will be simply awesome...I dont know what groups you are familiar with ,...but Id put many of the high level fighters Ive had in my games against a high level wizard anyday...and they werent even 'min/maxed' I found that at high levels most the fighters were doing around 60 points of damage a round....I dont think itll take many rounds of that to put a Wizard down. 2? 3? at best?...and if The fighter gets a crit?...and if hes smart he probably has improved crit for his weapon of choice...and maybe even made it Keen...
My experience has always been...that ANY of the classes, in the hands of a player skilled with that class....can and will beat any other. I havent found one yet that has such a clear cut advantage that he hands down defeats the other.
poodle |
I loathed 4th ed. It was just too much. Everybody could do everything but everyone had to keep within proscribed roles to stop it from falling apart.
Game balance is partly about the sytem but I think it is more about expectations. In one game we had a fighter/barbarian half orc. I was a butler. He killed everything pretty much and we all applauded. Huge imbalance you might say but because there was enough interesting stuff for the rest of us to do it didn't matter. I would be the first to admit my butler was an extremely suboptimal build but it was fun to play. Maybe I could have made something competitive but where is the fun in that. At low levels fighters whup ass and that's true in most games, in 3.5 druids kicked a fair ammount of keester. At high levels mages have always been thunderous that's why people took them to get them there. Even way back in 2nd ed you knew a mage sucked until their first 3 rd level spells.
Maybe I just think it is incumbent upon you as a player to bring the most out of your character and acknowledge it's limitations rather than blaming the system.
If you are the DM and the fighter is the only person doing anything then you should look at how you are running campaigns.
As mentioned in other posts though there should be a time and a place for a fighter, or a cleric, or a rogue or whatever characters you have in your party.
Pop'N'Fresh |
I think balance is important yes, but more for the genre of game you play than anything else. I have seen many campaign worlds where the warrior type characters were very powerful, but the spellcasters were usually hindered by one thing or another.
Look at Dark Sun for instance. You can't play a wizard in dark sun unless you know what you're doing. As soon as you begin casting spells inside a city, you'll have an angry mob after you and then you're a pitchfork pin cushion.
Same goes for Conan style sword and sorcery type games. Most PC's are warriors and the antagonists are the spellcasters.
The only campaign setting where I have really liked the role that wizards play is the Black Company setting, based on the novels by Glen Cook. That setting had its own spellcasting system though, which limited a low-level casters a lot, but once you got higher level, you could do some amazing stuff. It was also nice because spellcasters got to roll more than just damage.
I do enjoy 4E and the fact that every class can do something equally useful each round, but this would only really fly for me in your typical D&D high fantasy games. For other genres, it wouldn't really fit all that well.
poodle |
anyone who knows how to play a character well should hopefully overcome an opponent of similar level who doesn't. As for the imbalance between fighters and mages at high levels that is true but the best mage in the world is going to struggle if the fighter has just ised his improved overun or trip or grapple, knocked the mage on his butt and is currently feeding him as much knuckle sandwich as the mage can eat.
or if the druids familiar is gnawing on him
or if the rogue has stunned him and slashed his kidneys open
or if the barbarian beats him with a great axe that automatically criticals
or if the cleric has cast silence 15'radius
and so on.