| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A recent thread once again about martial versus caster "balance" had some good ideas, but to my mind again danced around the real issue.
Where am I coming from? One of my best friends from high school is now the guy in charge of game balance for World of Warcraft. Part of his job was just to define what a "balanced" character was. This was no easy task because WoW has so many parts. Is "balance" about arena? raiding? solo questing? efficiency in earning experience or gold? After an immense amount of discussion and analysis he finally found the answer that has helped make WoW so successful.
I'll hide his answer so folks who have played WoW can try to guess before looking.
When a player logs in to one of his or her characters, the player should think, "This character is so cool! I can't believe the game designers are letting me get away with this."
Every character, at every level, should somehow shine: be unique, be especially useful, be the best at something, be oddly powerful, have a special kind of fun.
A character is balanced when thinking about it creates a big expectation of fun.
Lots of people demand a different definition of "balance" that would somehow compare characters or put them in competition. This is nonsense. People play WoW to have fun. That's the bottom line, so fun is the appropriate thing to balance, and the only thing that can be meaningfully balanced.
So my questions are:
1. For each Pathfinder character class, what might a GM do to help the player of that character expect fun?
(As an obvious example, a Fighter could have opportunity to use his or her newest feat. If the player just picked Great Cleave then the player can have confidence the GM will ensure that one or two appropriate Great Cleave situations will happen during the next adventure.)
2. Are there any classes handicapped in this definition of balance?
(As an example, perhaps Rogues have difficulty shining since any thing they specialize in can be done equally well by some other class. That makes it hard to think "I can't believe the game designers are letting me get away with this.")
3. Are there any classes with a big advantage in this definition of balance?
4. What GM tips and techniques help players expect fun irregardless of which classes are in the adventuring party?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A character is balanced when thinking about it creates a big expectation of fun.
That sounds like he's just applying the word "balance" to what he wants it to mean, rather than trying to figure out what it is. That doesn't even make sense.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Unfortunately WoW has stripped away much of what makes different classes unique since release. Now every class can heal somehow, every class has some sort of AE or crowd control ability, etc. Balance in MMOs seems to eventually lead to homogenization of the character classes.
This is part of the reason I no longer play MMOs of any sort and stick to single player CRPGs like Skyrim or Baldur's Gate, and traditional tabletop RPGs like Pathfinder.
It's funny to read this and know that the WoW devs are constantly balancing a rebalancing everything. That one of their design goals is to keep dps specs as close to 5% of each other as possible. That tanks are all pretty competitive at tanking, and healers are all competetive at healing. That everyone in PvP has their counter and prey.
The definition your friend gives sounds like an excuse someone from Sony might have come up with several years ago about why they couldn't be bothered to balance EQ1 classes.
That sounds like he's just applying the word "balance" to what he wants it to mean, rather than trying to figure out what it is.
The definition your friend gives sounds like an excuse someone from Sony might have come up with several years ago about why they couldn't be bothered to balance EQ1 classes.
Well, his definition (sensible or not) is not personal preference but research driven. It is what the players most want to pay to experience. "I expect playing my character to be fun" sells better than "My DPS is fine tuned to be competitive."
It's also only part of the big picture and his job parameters. When players overall demanded rogues lose the positional requirement for big damage then it happened even though the game developers mourned.
Anyway, back to Pathfinder, since that's why we're here...
Consider the Rogue. The Rogue is a great stealth character. But, if the rest of the PCs aren't good at stealth, then the Rogue's player may have difficulty getting them to do a stealth adventure. So, while the Rogue shines at stealth, he never gets the chance to shine.
This sort of replies to my four questions, but oddly (for my own RPG experience) asks a player to do part of the GM's job. If I were the GM and had a player who enjoyed being a stealthy Rogue then I would put something short in each adventure where eavesdropping or spying or sneaking past a sentry would benefit the entire party by allowing them to identify/skip a red herring or gain extra preparation for the big climactic fight. It would not be the Rogue's player's job to convince the other players to adopt a style.
There is no definition of "balance" which makes sense.
And yes folks we have a winner!!!!. Darkwing you can pick up your grand prize at your convenience.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A character is balanced when thinking about it creates a big expectation of fun.That sounds like he's just applying the word "balance" to what he wants it to mean, rather than trying to figure out what it is. That doesn't even make sense.There is no definition of "balance" which makes sense.
The closest we can get is that everyone gets an equal chance to shine. But, everyone's need to shine is different. Some people like to play the supporting role (maybe they had a rough day at work and don't want to put much effort into their character tonight).
PLAYERS sre almost always what gives a character the ability to shine. Most of the favorite moments in my gaming group have very little to do with rules at all, but are clever/awesome things that players think of that are a bit outside the box.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I tend to agree that characters are "balanced" when they provide equal amounts of opportunity for fun.
For some players that means equal opportunity to role play. For some players it means equal opportunity to contribute to the party success (inside OR outside of combat). For some players it means nobody outshines them in combat.
It is the "nobody outshines them in combat" set of players who have set the agenda for game designers now for the past five years or so. If that's due to the influence of online MMORPGs, then it's an unfortunate influence in my opinion.
It is my own personal opinion that nothing has done as much to divide the gamer community and degrade the gaming experience overall than the headlong quest for the "holy grail of class balance."
Combat balance is overrated in my opinion. And the desperate attempt to make it happen is homogenizing and trivializing the game.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I tend to agree that characters are "balanced" when they provide equal amounts of opportunity for fun.
For some players that means equal opportunity to role play. For some players it means equal opportunity to contribute to the party success (inside OR outside of combat). For some players it means nobody outshines them in combat.
It is the "nobody outshines them in combat" set of players who have set the agenda for game designers now for the past five years or so. If that's due to the influence of online MMORPGs, then it's an unfortunate influence in my opinion.
It is my own personal opinion that nothing has done as much to divide the gamer community and degrade the gaming experience overall than the headlong quest for the "holy grail of class balance."
Combat balance is overrated in my opinion. And the desperate attempt to make it happen is homogenizing and trivializing the game.
I've always wondered why attempting to balance classes would impact people who don't care about balance.
If you really don't care, why does it matter what is going on mechanically?
I would have thought the only people that would be adversely affected by trying to balance classes would be those who actively wanted the classes to be deliberately unbalanced. And I don't really understand what there is to gain by actively unbalancing things.
In other words, it seems to me that balancing the classes helps some portion of the gaming community and is neutral to everyone else. Whereas not balancing them hurts that same portion and is still neutral to everyone else.
I tend to agree that characters are "balanced" when they provide equal amounts of opportunity for fun.
For some players that means equal opportunity to role play. For some players it means equal opportunity to contribute to the party success (inside OR outside of combat). For some players it means nobody outshines them in combat.
It is the "nobody outshines them in combat" set of players who have set the agenda for game designers now for the past five years or so. If that's due to the influence of online MMORPGs, then it's an unfortunate influence in my opinion.
It is my own personal opinion that nothing has done as much to divide the gamer community and degrade the gaming experience overall than the headlong quest for the "holy grail of class balance."
Combat balance is overrated in my opinion. And the desperate attempt to make it happen is homogenizing and trivializing the game.
I've always wondered why attempting to balance classes would impact people who don't care about balance.
If you really don't care, why does it matter what is going on mechanically?
I would have thought the only people that would be adversely affected by trying to balance classes would be those who actively wanted the classes to be deliberately unbalanced. And I don't really understand what there is to gain by actively unbalancing things.
In other words, it seems to me that balancing the classes helps some portion of the gaming community and is neutral to everyone else. Whereas not balancing them hurts that same portion and is still neutral to everyone else.
mpl, when mechanics are altered to address balance issues, that affects the game far beyond balance issues. 4e is the extreme example of this. The headlong rush to achieve class balance ended up with the homogenization of classes to the point that there really is no more distinction between how classes work. I don't like it when wizards and fighters are the same thing with different fluff. It makes a HUGE difference in the "flavor" of the game.
All attempts to balance have impacts beyond balance because of the complex interactions of the different aspects of the game.
All classes are equal when it comes to role playing them. You can role play any class, however you like. There's no class that has an advantage in role playing. Therefore comparing it is meaningless.
This is just another area of major contention between gamers. It boils down to different understandings of the definition of "role playing." For some "role play" means to act in whatever manner they desire for their character. For others it means to act according to the characters specific attributes, abilities, skills and feats. Thus a character with an intelligence of 7 is more limited in role play options than a character with intelligence of 18 because a character with 18 int can pretend to be stupid, but a character with a 7 int can't pretend to be a genius.
I acknolwedge that there is a large fraction of the RPG community that rejects the notion that character role playing should be constrained by the character's stats. But for those who accept that notion, then a class like a rogue has more role playing options than a class like fighter.
I would never role play my stats as they are nothing but probabilities, it's a pointless way of limiting yourself. It's video game logic at its worst.
As I said. But just because you play this way doesn't mean everyone does. And just because you condescend and insult those who don't, doesn't mean they are "wrong."
I've been role playing by the "play your character as they are on the sheet" definition since the late 70s, so I'm pretty sure it's not a "video game" influence.
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
I would have thought the only people that would be adversely affected by trying to balance classes would be those who actively wanted the classes to be deliberately unbalanced. And I don't really understand what there is to gain by actively unbalancing things.
In other words, it seems to me that balancing the classes helps some portion of the gaming community and is neutral to everyone else. Whereas not balancing them hurts that same portion and is still neutral to everyone else.
I would say that finely tuned balance is not very fun. A truly balanced game allows no one to ever shine, because for true balance no one should ever be better at anything than anyone else. Ugh. What is really fun is carefully tuned imbalance - situations where each person gets a chance to feel like the hero who saved the day because of their unique abilities. That's a lot tougher than balance, but a lot more fun. But, it also means that not everyone is in the spotlight all the time. It means that the choices players made in creating their characters actually matter.
"Everybody should be able to contribute equally to all situations" leads to a boring game, IMO. "Everybody should feel awesome at some point each session" is a much better way to go.
The headlong rush to achieve class balance ended up with the homogenization of classes to the point that there really is no more distinction between how classes work.
I don't understand this. You want more roleplaying, but don't like the system that basically gets totally out of your way and allows you to roleplay however you like. Less distinction means less constraints.
I'm not "defending 4e" or anything--I'm no crusader. I think it's a fun game, but not any more or less than previous editions of D&D. I absolutely hate running it, though.
I don't like it when wizards and fighters are the same thing with different fluff. It makes a HUGE difference in the "flavor" of the game.
Again, can you explain this?
They made them the same except for the fluff, but this has made a huge difference to the flavor? Aren't fluff and flavor interchangeable in RPG-speak?
I mean, that sounds like, "The only thing difference is the flavor and that totally changes the flavor!"
All attempts to balance have impacts beyond balance because of the complex interactions of the different aspects of the game.
I get the sense that every time you say that you want "role playing," you really mean that you want "simulation" or "verisimilitude."
I acknolwedge that there is a large fraction of the RPG community that rejects the notion that character role playing should be constrained by the character's stats. But for those who accept that notion, then a class like a rogue has more role playing options than a class like fighter.
I am not being contentious, I swear. I just honestly don't understand how the rogue has more options. The Fighter can choose to put his stats in all the same places a Rogue can. What contrains the Fighter that doesn't constrain the Rogue? And why is it a good thing, in your opinion that Fighters are more constrained than Rogues?
The headlong rush to achieve class balance ended up with the homogenization of classes to the point that there really is no more distinction between how classes work.I don't understand this. You want more roleplaying, but don't like the system that basically gets totally out of your way and allows you to roleplay however you like. Less distinction means less constraints.
I'm not "defending 4e" or anything--I'm no crusader. I think it's a fun game, but not any more or less than previous editions of D&D. I absolutely hate running it, though.
mpl, I am always impressed by your posts, you are clearly thoughtful and try to be fair. I'll try to do the same. I don't need 4e defended. I like 4e, it's a great game. I play it regularly. But it's not the same as PF and the homogenization of classes is a major difference between the systems. I prefer having classes with distinct mechanics. That's all.
Less constraints does not equal superior role playing. It is not hard to make an argument that working within constraints is superior to working without them. That's what rules are, by they way, constraints. Playing an RPG "without constraints" would simply mean you could say "I kill everyone, we win." No constraints, no argument, you win. Game over.
I don't like it when wizards and fighters are the same thing with different fluff. It makes a HUGE difference in the "flavor" of the game.Again, can you explain this?
They made them the same except for the fluff, but this has made a huge difference to the flavor? Aren't fluff and flavor interchangeable in RPG-speak?
I mean, that sounds like, "The only thing difference is the flavor and that totally changes the flavor!"
I don't know why you feel flavor is totally unrelated to mechanics. I don't equate flavor and fluff in any way shape or form. Fluff is simply the words used to describe the mechanics. Flavor is a direct result of the mechanics. Wizards are different than fighters in PF. In 4e they are not. That is a huge difference in the flavor of the game.
All attempts to balance have impacts beyond balance because of the complex interactions of the different aspects of the game.I get the sense that every time you say that you want "role playing," you really mean that you want "simulation" or "verisimilitude."
I acknolwedge that there is a large fraction of the RPG community that rejects the notion that character role playing should be constrained by the character's stats. But for those who accept that notion, then a class like a rogue has more role playing options than a class like fighter.I am not being contentious, I swear. I just honestly don't understand how the rogue has more options. The Fighter can choose to put his stats in all the same places a Rogue can. What contrains the Fighter that doesn't constrain the Rogue? And why is it a good thing, in your opinion that Fighters are more constrained than Rogues?
If you accept the notion that role playing means working within the constraints of your character's attributes, abilities, skills and feats, then it should be clear that if you have more skills, you have more options. If I can climb walls, I have more options than if I can't. If I can ALSO sneak down hallways, I have even MORE options. If I can open a locked door quietly, I have even MORE options. Characters with more skill points can DO more, so if your role playing is actually constrained by what characters can actually mechanically DO, then having more skill points gives you more options. I don't see how this is not obvious, assuming you accept (which you seem not to) that role playing is defined as playing your character's attributes, abilities, skills and feats.
Balancing all rpg characters to the same scale is pointless. Even mmo's don't do that. They try to balance healers to healers, tanks to tanks, and dps to dps (based on the role in a party).
Pathfinder and other rpg's don't have such clearly defined party roles, though, so balancing like that done in mmo's won't work. My limited knowledge of 4e leads me to believe that WoTC tried to create a game that would allow for balancing classes around roles, but we know the impact that had on their game. My 2 cents.
But it's not the same as PF and the homogenization of classes is a major difference between the systems. I prefer having classes with distinct mechanics. That's all.
So, let me ask a tangential question:
Is it balance in general that you object to, or the specific way in which 4e attempted to balance things that you object to?
Do you think it's possible to have a "balanced" set of classes without a 4e-style homogenization, as you called it? If you think it is possible, do you think it is a worthwhile goal? Do you think it would still hurt things?
I don't know why you feel flavor is totally unrelated to mechanics. I don't equate flavor and fluff in any way shape or form. Fluff is simply the words used to describe the mechanics. Flavor is a direct result of the mechanics. Wizards are different than fighters in PF. In 4e they are not. That is a huge difference in the flavor of the game.
Ok, I can work with that definition of flavor. I frequently talk about fluff and crunch in rpgs, but was "scolded" once by a White Wolf writer for using the term "fluff" since it implied something that was unimportant rather than something that had no mechanical impact, as I intended. He insisted that instead of calling it "fluff," I call it "flavor," because he believed it was more essential than I gave it credit for.
If you accept the notion that role playing means working within the constraints of your character's attributes, abilities, skills and feats,
I think that can be one way to play, but it really depends on the system. D&D has always tried to make your attributes simulate something, so yes, in D&D, you ought to be at least somewhat constrained. However, other games care much less about that sort of thing. When an rpg has stats like "Heart" and "Will," all on different die scales (2d6 vs. 3d8), I'm not sure how much you can reasonably be expected to simulate that.
Further, simulating stats in D&D comes with a caveat:
It is more important to me that your characterization match your stats, than for your individual actions. Case in point: I don't mind if an Int 7 Barbarian solves a riddle, as long as the Barbarian is not characterized as a smart guy who solves riddles all the time. Anyone can get lucky or think sideways or something else at any given moment. Likewise, I don't mind a Charisma 7 Fighter making a great speech before a battle, as long as said Figther is not characterized as a great speaker who does that sort of thing routinely. Anyone can have a moment of awesome.
You also have to be careful about how extreme you characterize varying stats. Someone with 7 Intelligence, for example, is only 10% less likely to succeed than an average person. That's not a drooling idiot by any means. Further, an 18 Intelligence is only, really, 25% smarter than average. Trust me, that will not have as profound an impact on your life as most gamers seem to think.
then it should be clear that if you have more skills, you have more options. If I can climb walls, I have more options than if I can't. If I can ALSO sneak down hallways, I have even MORE options. If I can open a locked door quietly, I have even MORE options. Characters with more skill points can DO more, so if your role playing is actually constrained by what characters can actually mechanically DO, then having more skill points gives you more options. I don't see how this is not obvious, assuming you accept (which you seem not to) that role playing is defined as playing your character's attributes, abilities, skills and feats.
I can see how the Rogue has more that they can do, skillwise, but I don't see why that does anything to improve your ability to roleplay. If anything, by your earlier talk about more constraints making for better roleplay, it would seem the Fighter has it better.
I don't know, I think both classes offer equal opportunity to roleplay and characterize.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It would help to have some basic definitions of balance. Every comment in this thread is 100% subjective and not at all based on any kind of theory of balance.
Hence why people keep saying "balance" in quotes.
There are three that I know of (courtesy of the Alexandrian):
1) Natural Balance -- things are balanced as they would be in real life. For example, machine gunner beats martial artist, no contest.
2) Spotlight Balance -- things are balanced to give different types of characters their moment to shine. Pathfinder follows this method. For example, the fighter kills, the mage controls, and the rogue disarms the trap. At its most basic, each class has a clearly defined role and there is little or no deviation from it. Rock-paper-scissors fits into this type of balance.
3) Concept Balance -- things are balanced so classes are more or less equal. For example, dps in WoW.
WoW uses 2) and 3) combined. Each class has a clearly defined role, but all classes have similar dps potential, methods of control, and small groups of classes have similar utility. For example, druids, warlocks and DKs all have a battle res. PvP is rock-paper-scissors.
Spotlight balance is what allows the Trinity to exist. Concept balance is what allows the "bring the player not the class" philosophy to work.
Sure it's great to log in and think "My toon is awesome/powerful/fun." But that thought is directly derived from the preceding, unconsious thought "My toon is on a level playing field with everyone else." That becomes less unconscious the more classes you play, when you realize "This class is as awesome as every other class I've played."
Applying this to Pathfinder, it quickly becomes glaringly obvious how imbalanced some classes are. I'll pick on rogues because they are currently my problem IRL. What is fair/awesome about the rogue? Absolutely nothing, unless all you're looking for is roleplay. They do about half the damage of a damage dealer, and their spotlight is easily performed by several other classes.
To answer your question OP, when the RAW gives you so little (with respect to the rogue example) there is very little you can do inside the rules.
A truly balanced game allows no one to ever shine, because for true balance no one should ever be better at anything than anyone else.
Rock-paper-scissors is perfectly balanced, but not everything is equally good at everything. The rock is much better than paper when it comes to crushing scissors, but it in turn gets covered by the paper. Ideally, D&D would present classes that are different, but that are all undisputably the best in certain areas that frequently come up during standard play (for lack of a better definition, I'd look at Paizo APs as a reasonable basis for "standard" Pathfinder play).
Everyone knows that perfection is impossible, but that doesn't mean we should give up and make things as unbalanced as possible.
EDIT: Ninjad by Hudax.
So, let me ask a tangential question:
Is it balance in general that you object to, or the specific way in which 4e attempted to balance things that you object to?
Do you think it's possible to have a "balanced" set of classes without a 4e-style homogenization, as you called it? If you think it is possible, do you think it is a worthwhile goal? Do you think it would still hurt things?
I've given this a lot of thought and I think that it is very unwise to call anything "impossible." But I've seen this holy grail pursued for decades now and so far every attempt to achieve it with classes has not been a success in my view. I think the best way to achieve balance is to seek equality of opportunity and have a skill-based instead of a class-based system if you truly feel balance is that critical to the game. I don't consider it that critical.
He insisted that instead of calling it "fluff," I call it "flavor," because he believed it was more essential than I gave it credit for.
I try real hard not to get into debates that are essentially semantic arguments. That's why I try to set definitions in my own arguments so that it doesn't become an argument where one person is arguing a type of role playing while the other person is arguing a completely different type of role playing. I see this a lot, frankly.
It is more important to me that your characterization match your stats, than for your individual actions. Case in point: I don't mind if an Int 7 Barbarian solves a riddle, as long as the Barbarian is not characterized as a smart guy who solves riddles all the time. Anyone can get lucky or think sideways or something else at any given moment. Likewise, I don't mind a Charisma 7 Fighter making a great speech before a battle, as long as said Figther is not characterized as a great speaker who does that sort of thing routinely. Anyone can have a moment of awesome.
You also have to be careful about how extreme you characterize varying stats. Someone with 7 Intelligence, for example, is only 10% less likely to succeed than an average person. That's not a drooling idiot by any means. Further, an 18 Intelligence is only, really, 25% smarter than average. Trust me, that will not have as profound an impact on your life as most gamers seem to think.
I agree that there is a gray area in role playing between what a character can attempt and what they are likely to succeed at. I have no problem with an int 7 barbarian attempting to solve a riddle. But if that int 7 barbarian is ALWAYS solving riddles, I do have a problem with it. At some point the player who accepts the constraints of character stats should acknowledge the limitations of an int of 7 and play the character that way. I don't have a problem with "moments of awesome" but I do have a problem when those moments are habitual and are defended as "moments."
I don't accept your premise that an intelligence of 7 is only 10% less than average, nor that an int of 18 is only 25% smarter than average. The raging debates on how attribute scores should be interpreted has never been settled and is just another area where people interpret it in the manner that best supports their preferred play style. I take a pretty straightforward and simplistic approach to stats and say that if 10 is average, then 13 is 30% better and 7 is 30% worse. If 10 is a C average student then 7 is a D- at best and probably an F.
This is one of the great strengths and weaknesses of the game systems. Many of these things are left deliberately vague for the specific purpose of allowing a wide range of interpretations so that the gamer population can be larger (and sell more product).
|
Unfortunately WoW has stripped away much of what makes different classes unique since release. Now every class can heal somehow, every class has some sort of AE or crowd control ability, etc. Balance in MMOs seems to eventually lead to homogenization of the character classes.
This is part of the reason I no longer play MMOs of any sort and stick to single player CRPGs like Skyrim or Baldur's Gate, and traditional tabletop RPGs like Pathfinder.
Not done reading the thread yet but this jumped out at me.
Take this as just a retort with a smile and not a jab.
This is part of the reason I no longer play MMOs of any sort and stick to single player CRPGs like Skyrim or Baldur's Gate
I have to retort with because those games don't come anywhere near catering to one person or allowing 1 person to do it all (you not the character)
/fun hearted sarcasm off
I think the best way to achieve balance is to seek equality of opportunity and have a skill-based instead of a class-based system if you truly feel balance is that critical to the game. I don't consider it that critical.
I do consider the most balanced game I've played to be Savage Worlds (and it also happens to be my favorite).
I am also attempting to create an RPG that is likewise balanced in regards to opportunity.
Frankly, ignoring D&D and it's off-shoots, I don't think I could name any rpg other than RIFTs that was truly class-based (though admittedly games like Legend of the Five Rings and World of Darkness games have psuedo-classes that restrict far less severely than traditional definitions of class). It is funny to me that D&D appears to be the only game on the market genuinely concerned with balance, but which sticks to classes, a system in which balance is the hardest to attain.
I don't accept your premise that an intelligence of 7 is only 10% less than average, nor that an int of 18 is only 25% smarter than average. The raging debates on how attribute scores should be interpreted has never been settled and is just another area where people interpret it in the manner that best supports their preferred play style. I take a pretty straightforward and simplistic approach to stats and say that if 10 is average, then 13 is 30% better and 7 is 30% worse. If 10 is a C average student then 7 is a D- at best and probably an F
So, does that mean there are things for which you roll that are based on an attribute's actual value, rather than it's modifier? I am unaware of any roll like that in D&D 3rd or Pathfinder.
I mean, let's say the DC of a test is, arbitrarily, 11. An average person, with Intelligence 10, will pass that test 50% of the time. Someone with a 12 intelligence will pass that test 55% of the time, as will someone with a 13 intelligence. Someone with a 19 intelligence will pass it 70% of the time. Someone with an 8 intelligence will pass it 45% of the time and a 7 intelligence will pass it 40% of the time.
The actual value of attributes means nothing anymore. It actually did use to, in AD&D, when the default roll for something not covered elsewhere was trying to roll your attribute or lower. But now, it's every two attributes that matter. Odd ones mean nothing, effectively, as they are not measurably smarter, faster, wiser, or tougher than someone with the even stat one below theirs (they are stronger, though, as someone's carrying limit is still baffling based on actual value even though nothing else in the entire system is).
mpl, we aren't going to agree on some things, so I'm just going to address the interpretation of intelligence stat comparison.
I understand the argument that all other things being equal an intelligence of 18 gives a +4 attribute bonus to an int based skill.
However, all other things are not equal. Besides the +4 attribute bonus, the character with the 18 int is getting four more skill points PER LEVEL to put in skills.
That means an 18 int character has a 5% per level advantage in four skills over a 10 int character plus the +4 bonus.
So by level 10 that 18 int character can have a +17 advantage in four skills over an int 10 character.
That is not remotely a "10% advantage."
But to realize that means you have to take the holistic view of what attribute scores mean to a character, not focus just on the specific limited attribute bonuses.
Using your DC of 11, an 18 int character at first level can virtually auto-succeed on that test on four more int-based skills PLUS all the 25% increase on all the others that have the same skill ranks applied. (+4 from int, +1 from rank, +3 from class skill boost for a total +8 on four additional skills)
And that's just for skills. When you start factoring in bonus spells to cast per day, or increased DC effectiveness on opposing spell saves... Well, let's just say an extra first - fourth level spell per day is probably not a mere 10% improvement for a wizard.
Understand?
Balance is now part of acrobatics.
How can people not have realised that after all this time?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think that the following provides for a pretty good explanation of how the stuff written on your character sheet informs role-play, as well as why not all classes are ‘balanced’ in this regard.
In this example of play, a Fighter, Rogue and Wizard have all discovered something fishy going on within the local castle, but they’ve been stonewalled in all their investigations and nobody seems to want to talk to them. The Wizard gets the bright idea of maybe talking to the princess, who seems nicer and more open than anybody else.
The group decides to quietly converse with the princess. But in order to do so, somebody is going to have to scale the castle walls, sneak through the tower, pick the lock on the princess’ door, and succeed in assuaging her fears that they are not there to kill her long enough to gain some useful information.
To recap, the ‘fun’ goal is to role-play an interaction with the princess, because everybody else gets to sit on the castle lawn and pick their nose. Not a great scenario by the DM, sure, but I think we’ve all seen this happen.
The Fighter is boned, here. He might be able to Climb the walls, provided that is one of his ~3 Skills. He also has to take off his heavy armor first, meaning that even the princess could stab his AC 11. He also might be able to Sneak though the tower, but quietly opening a lock provides an all but impossible challenge, let alone waking/talking to the princess before she takes one look at his 8 CHA and yells “stranger danger!”
The Rogue is in much better shape. Climb the walls? Probably! Sneak around? Heck yes! Disable Device? Done! Charm the pants off the princess? Sure, and he’ll probably strike up a forbidden romance and score some loot while he’s at it. In comparison to the Fighter, the Rogue has 100% more fun, because the situation favors his Class build.
The Wizard, having spent the day preparing for this secret meeting, needs not make a single roll. Fly, he says, and so Climbs the wall. Invisibility doesn’t make him silent, but a bit of caution surely does. Knock handles the door. Charm Person handles the princess, and the Wizard has enough Knowledge Skills to use that information. Compared to the Fighter, the Wizard has 100% more fun, and has the added benefit of overcoming challenges the Rogue also could not, so long as he knows about them ahead of time.
"So long as he knows about them ahead of time..."
Sure casters rock when they have access to the perfect spells, the time to prepare them and their targets don't make their saves.
It would be interesting to see what the role playing result of that exercise might be if just before the wizard says "fly" the door bursts open and the King's spymaster and a group of guards crashes through the door.
Then the fighter and rogue will both have their basic abilities at the ready and the wizard is going to be saying "Oh crap!"
|
|
Oh, certainly. I didn't use that scenario because most people cut off 'role-play' at the point where you begin to kill people, and role-play was the focus.
But to answer your question, a Sorcerer could have likely done most of what the Wizard did and wouldn't need any Charm Spells, because he needs only unfurl his weirdly-colored angel-wings in the direction of the princess and she swoons all over the place because his CHA is stupid good.
Plus, lets examine that fight. If the enemies have surprise, the only person NOT violently beaten is the Rogue, since he's not Flat-Footed. If, on the other hand, the combat is not a surprise, the Wizard (Improved Initiative, average DEX, Sleep, Evard's Black Tentacles, etc) wtfpwns the enemies anyway.
My basic point is that fun role-play pretty much revolves around your character's ability to influence the world, not just be really good at killing guys. Besides, the much more versatile Rogue and Wizard are also remarkably effective killers, as are almost all PCs by default.
If the wizard had time to prepare all his spells, then the rogue would have time to purchase/steal magic items that do the same thing. As would the fighter, but the fighter would have more trouble with using magic items.
Preparation is everything.
It would be interesting to see what the role playing result of that exercise might be if just before the wizard says "fly" the door bursts open and the King's spymaster and a group of guards crashes through the door.
He probably saw that such a thing might be a problem--I know I'd expect the worse.
So, depending on level, he'd probably turn invisible, glitterdust them, black tentacles, teleport, create an illusion (a really smart Wizard would have already had an illusion running elsewhere in the castle to draw attention away from him), or teleport away.
There are virtually limitless options for the Wizard's escape (or hell, he could just summon something to tank and blast them all). The Fighter or Rogue basically have to fight their way out.
It would be interesting to see what the role playing result of that exercise might be if just before the wizard says "fly" the door bursts open and the King's spymaster and a group of guards crashes through the door.He probably saw that such a thing might be a problem--I know I'd expect the worse.
So, depending on level, he'd probably turn invisible, glitterdust them, black tentacles, teleport, create an illusion (a really smart Wizard would have already had an illusion running elsewhere in the castle to draw attention away from him), or teleport away.
There are virtually limitless options for the Wizard's escape (or hell, he could just summon something to tank and blast them all). The Fighter or Rogue basically have to fight their way out.
I would say that depends entirely on level. The only one in the group that would almost certainly have to fight their way out is the fighter. All the rogue needs is a potion of invisibility and stealth. If we are talking characters at a high enough level that the wizard has teleport and evard's black tentacles, then there is no reason the rogue and fighter wouldn't have a pouch full of magic items that did the same sorts of things as the wizard's spells. If we're talking low level characters then the wizard is likely the most hampered in the surprise situation since he invested most of his spells in the scenario he was expecting, not the scenario he ended up actually fighting. It's pretty hard to cast "glitterdust" if the slot you would use for glitterdust is holding another spell you had expected to need instead.
Besides I don't really accept the initial notion that the "goal" of the situation is for one single character to be the role play star while the other two sit it out anyway. That's not merely poor gameplay, that's poor social interaction in RL.
|
|
I should probably mention that I wholly believe that there is a Martial-Magical power discrepancy, and that it is a horrible thing.
I think Fighters should probably be 6+INT Skill Classes, actually.
Oh man, the argument that in the hour it takes the Wizard to prepare his spells, the Rogue could find/buy/steal 4+ Scrolls is just silly. I mean, is money a Class Feature of the Rogue? He's really no more capable of using party resources (because they are, not to get all meta) than the Wizard.
"If the wizard had time to prepare all his spells, then the wizard would have time to purchase/steal magic items that do the same thing."
That's just as true (err, not) as what you said. And the argument with the Fighter is that he could Use Magic Device (not a Class Skill) to cover his bases and ignore his lack of Class Skills? Or is he using Fighter Bonus Feats to cover his lack of Class Skills, the hampering the only role he's actually quite good at?
Let's get back on subject: my argument is that role-play IS constrained by what your character sheet says, and thus that certain classes DO have a role-play advantage over other classes.
For the above argument, I don't define trying to kill or incapacitate people as role-play.
All the rogue needs is a potion of invisibility and stealth. If we are talking characters at a high enough level that the wizard has teleport and evard's black tentacles, then there is no reason the rogue and fighter wouldn't have a pouch full of magic items that did the same sorts of things as the wizard's spells.
It might be just me, but it really bothers me that the non-magical classes might do ok because they might be able to buy some magic.
By that logic, a Wizard can find and disable traps because he might be able to buy the services of a Rogue.
Besides I don't really accept the initial notion that the "goal" of the situation is for one single character to be the role play star while the other two sit it out anyway. That's not merely poor gameplay, that's poor social interaction in RL.
Well, no, "don't be a jerk," stops that from happening.
But, and I know it isn't an issue for you, it is a problem for me if my Rogue is really only involved because the Wizard was "not a jerk" enough that he allowed me to help.
When another member of the party can do all the things you do and more (and better!), it doesn't matter to me whether he actually does or not--he's able to, and that's sucky. I'm relying on ignorance of his own capabilities or good will to not step on my toes. No fun.
When people talk about the underdogs winning, I think most of the time, their perceptions of the situation are off. Underdogs winning are not stories of scrappy heroes overcoming superior foes. 9 times out of 10, when an underdog wins, it's because he's actually better, but due to media hype or whatever, just appeared inferior.
All the rogue needs is a potion of invisibility and stealth. If we are talking characters at a high enough level that the wizard has teleport and evard's black tentacles, then there is no reason the rogue and fighter wouldn't have a pouch full of magic items that did the same sorts of things as the wizard's spells.It might be just me, but it really bothers me that the non-magical classes might do ok because they might be able to buy some magic.
By that logic, a Wizard can find and disable traps because he might be able to buy the services of a Rogue.
Besides I don't really accept the initial notion that the "goal" of the situation is for one single character to be the role play star while the other two sit it out anyway. That's not merely poor gameplay, that's poor social interaction in RL.Well, no, "don't be a jerk," stops that from happening.
But, and I know it isn't an issue for you, it is a problem for me if my Rogue is really only involved because the Wizard was "not a jerk" enough that he allowed me to help.
When another member of the party can do all the things you do and more (and better!), it doesn't matter to me whether he actually does or not--he's able to, and that's sucky. I'm relying on ignorance of his own capabilities or good will to not step on my toes. No fun.
When people talk about the underdogs winning, I think most of the time, their perceptions of the situation are off. Underdogs winning are not stories of scrappy heroes overcoming superior foes. 9 times out of 10, when an underdog wins, it's because he's actually better, but due to media hype or whatever, just appeared inferior.
Why would it be a problem for a wizard to find and disable traps by hiring a rogue?
And if it bothers you that the wizard can do stuff and "allows" the rogue to help, then how does that change when BOTH of you can do the same thing? The wizard is still "allowing you to help" since he could do it on his own, even if you can do it just as well, or better. And technically even the fighter COULD climb the wall, sneak down the hall, charm the princess and save the day. He'd just have to roll really, really well to do it. But he COULD. So technically he's "allowing" the rogue or wizard to do it himself.
Yes, I play the game as a team activity. In actual game play there is usually a lot more going on in a campaign than three guys sitting around drinking beer deciding which one is going to sneak in and charm the princess. There's something the wizard can do, something the rogue can do and something the fighter can do. Perhaps the fighter can create a diversion while the wizard is divining the intentions of the BBEG as the rogue saves the princess.
I know... the wizard could do all of that all by himself, so even if they all need to be done at the same time, since the wizard could create a BETTER diversion or charm the princess FASTER and of course is the only one who has a functioning crystal ball...
Heck, the rogue and fighter are just chumps after all in a wizard dominated world...
Luckily I don't play or see it that way and the amazing thing is that because I don't, I manage to see the fighter and rogue contributing to the game instead of being red-shirted extras who serve at the mercy and beck and call of the almighty wizard. I just see the fighter and rogue having a key task to perform and doing their best to accomplish it. That's all.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, what the Fighter-Wizard discrepancy reminds me of is the relationship in powers between Aquaman and Superman. Basically, most people would agree that Aquaman is one of the lamest Superheroes ever invented, while Superman is unfairly overpowered in comparison to everyone else. In fact, one of Aquaman’s powers is described as “the ability to swim as fast as Superman”.
In Pathfinder terms, Aquaman (the Fighter) is so limited in his ability to interact with the world compared to Superman (the Wizard) that he is only a viable choice in situations where:
1.) A minimum of two people are needed, no matter what
2.) The entire future of the world depends entirely on TALKING TO A FISH.
So what I’m saying is that in order to make the Fighter shine, I as a DM must either purposefully introduce enemies which cater to his specific Feats (lots of little guys for Great Cleave), which is hard because of the Wizard (lots of little guys for Fireball). Or else I have to construct a REALLY out there situation where only someone with Greater Grapple, Bleeding Critical and Ride-By-Attack can win the day.
The issue comes back to my original post: I had four obstacles (Climb, Stealth, Disable Device, Diplomacy) and three classes (Fighter, Rogue Wizard). Sadly, one class could do one objective, while the other two could do all four. Essentially, the Fighter’s limits constrain me as a DM if I want to keep him involved.
So let’s throw the Classes out the window. Ideally, for the above scenario, I don’t need a Fighter, Rogue, and Wizard. I need a strong Climber, a shadowy Sneak, a professional Locksmith, and a shrewd Negotiator. Ideally, those should all be DIFFERENT PLAYERS with the ability to HELP EACHOTHER so that when the princess says her piece, instead of just a smug Rogue or smugger Wizard, the whole party is there to hear.
That’s my preferred solution to the Class imbalance we’ve been talking about, but it involves Rogues not being able to use Climb and Diplomacy and Wizards knowing only two of the following: Fly, Invisibility, Knock and Charm Person. People seem very opposed to those sort of changes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In fact, one of Aquaman’s powers is described as “the ability to swim as fast as Superman”.
The entire future of the world depends entirely on TALKING TO A FISH.
I have to construct a REALLY out there situation where only someone with Greater Grapple, Bleeding Critical and Ride-By-Attack can win the day.
Brilliant post. I laughed, I cried, I agreed.
|
|
Atarlost has the right idea here.
I mean, objectively, the next system re-write (D&D v5.0?) really needs to fix the Rogue. And by "fix", I mean "near-totally redo". You've got a class DESIGNED to be self-sufficient and play solo as far as Skills go (either less skill points or less class skills needs to happen) that all but REQUIRES allies to actually be good in combat, and has no real Class Features not available to other classes (Evasion, Uncanny Dodge, Trapfinding...).
In addition, Sneak Attack is terrible in that it is poorly named (you don't have to be sneaky in the least), requires a feat tax to be used solo (Improved Feint), is hugely irregular in output (3d6 once, rolled low vs 3d6 x3 from a TWF Hasted Rogue who rolled high) and doesn't work against half the things PCs fight.
Contrast Rogues to Bards which help their allies in combat and out, have hugely and universally reliable Class Features unique to them, get Rogue Class Features easily, and have a bevy of useful spells including Arcane healing (!!) instead of UMD.
Some people will find it balanced because they understand the ranger has better saves and more utility. Some will find it balanced because they are biased in favor of the fighter. Only one of these methods of interpreting balance is valid. That difference--between the valid and invalid ways of interpreting balance--lends it some objectivity.
I agree balance is more art than science, but it is explainable and the explanation should be agreeable to most people.