Yes, replace 'houserules' with 'table variance', so we can stop dealing with semantics.
Semantics, please. I provided two distinct examples of games, RAW, that would significantly impact a spellcaster's power. All variance due to GM fiat, which is not a house rule, which is a rule that contradicts RAW.
This is not semantical, it's part of the design. The designers intend the GM to create the game that suits his group. High to Low Magic, Firearms to None, Lots of Anti-magic to Lots of Magic.
These are all things in a GMs control, RAW. And they all impact balance.
Writing new feats for fighters to give them better powers, giving rogues extra feats or granting a monk full BAB are all houserules. They also impact balance, but aren't RAW.
The heart of my argument is that many of these "This class is OP/Broken/Unbalanced" threads stem from table variance. Not house rules, but simply how the GM runs his game. Theory-craft may show us the Min-Maxxed Barbarian greatly outperforms a fighter, but as long as the fighter is a viable choice, balance is not an issue.
Modify rules for flavour, fun, functionality, and balance. That makes the GMs job easier.
Again, a holy grail: there's no such thing as balance in an RPG. The rules are too complex and there is such a dependance on social power structures (GM and PCs) that the rules cannot dictate this. 4e wasn't balanced, though it claimed to be. It was just harder to suck. There were optimal builds and some things became redundant through splat (see Humans).
Again, if the classes are fun, functional and flavourful, balance isn't an issue. A fighter and a wizard don't need to match DPR rates or have similar kills to deaths ratios or even have to worry about utility overlap, as long as both classes are functional and fun.
But, speaking of semantics, I'm positive you and I have different definitions of balance, which is why arguing that balance is a good thing or even possible is a dead end. Balance is in the eye of the beholder, so why bother when the game is fun, flavourful and functional?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Balance is a GM's job.
I see this a lot, and I also see that, interestingly, many of the "don't balance the classes" people are also the "DM is God and needs to put those worthless troublemaker entitled players in their places or kick them to the curb" people.
An unbalanced game forces the DM to balance it through granted special authority and fiat. I am starting to suspect that many GMs have been on a power trip for so long that they actively want the game rules to be as unbalanced as possible -- because the less balance there is inherently, the more power everyone needs to cede over to them to correct it. If you disagree, call one of them a "referee" instead of a "game MASTER" and watch the spittle fly.
I would like to think this is just conspiracy theory, and I would like it very much if someone else could convince me that that's all it is. But at this point that will require some evidence.
P.S. The guy who says "wizards are just supposed to be better" is excepted from the above -- he's not necessarily on a power-GM-trip; he just honestly has no idea what "character level" actually means, and can't grasp the concept.
Again, a holy grail: there's no such thing as balance in an RPG. The rules are too complex and there is such a dependance on social power structures (GM and PCs) that the rules cannot dictate this.
When you design the game, your idea of balance is likely going to affect what it turns into. If your goal is balanced, its likely going to end up more balanced than if you say balance can go out the window. Taking an extreme on either side is usually a bad thing, which is why I keep using the term "relative balance".
Also, what does the GM vs PC gig have to do with balance? or people saying "Don't do what 4E did!" for that matter?
For me balance does not allways equal good or fun.... Palladium, Rolemaster, Shadowrun to name a few games have balance issues... All are good and fun games, I have a hankering for some Ninjas and Super Spies after watching a lot of Kung Fu movies on the weekend.
If everybody around the table are having a great time then game balance is not an issue.
Balance is a GM's job.I see this a lot, and I also see that, interestingly, many of the "don't balance the classes" people are also the "DM is God and needs to put those worthless troublemaker entitled players in their places or kick them to the curb" people.
An unbalanced game forces the DM to balance it through granted special authority and fiat. I am starting to suspect that many GMs have been on a power trip for so long that they actively want the game rules to be as unbalanced as possible -- because the less balance there is inherently, the more power everyone needs to cede over to them to correct it. If you disagree, call one of them a "referee" instead of a "game MASTER" and watch the spittle fly.
I would like to think this is just conspiracy theory, and I would like it very much if someone else could convince me that that's all it is. But at this point that will require some evidence.
P.S. The guy who says "wizards are just supposed to be better" is excepted from the above -- he's not necessarily on a power-GM-trip; he just honestly has no idea what "character level" actually means, and can't grasp the concept.
Character level is an interesting place to start. It wasn't until 3.0 that character level was a place to point at balance. Previously, character level was pretty much tied to the class and the class alone. A Theif leapt through the levels, while a paladin crawled and fighter-mage-theif was left in the dust.
Was this balanced? Nope. A 12th level paladin would lay waste to a 12th level theif. But that's okay, because the theif would get there WAY faster.
But was 2E fun, functional and flavourful: pretty much yes. It wasn't until it became so bloated with splat (you know, like optional skill point functions and fighting styles that let elves beat everything) that it really warranted some streamlining.
I.E. With all the errata, the fun and functionality was failing. (I blame the elves.)
As for the idea that the GM "balances" a game, I come from this school of thought:
A GM's job is to engage the players at their table. All of them should feel like the hero of the story at least once, and their character should feel valuable.
If this is accomplished, the game should feel balanced. The RAW can only force us to make every class feel valuable in every circumstance, forcing "balance". I.E. 4th ed's valiant attempt that was still exploitable.
Now, when a class is hopelessly outclassed by the others, then one can question it's functionality and it's fun. This is why the monk needs a fix, IMHO.
But GM Fiat is part of the game. They are the one's who run the adventure, and if it isn't all modules (which then makes balance partly a module writer's fiat), then they will determine what value each class has by offering them opportunities. This isn't a new idea.
For me balance does not allways equal good or fun.... Palladium, Rolemaster, Shadowrun to name a few games have balance issues... All are good and fun games, I have a hankering for some Ninjas and Super Spies after watching a lot of Kung Fu movies on the weekend.
If everybody around the table are having a great time then game balance is not an issue.
And balance never ruins fun for anyone that wasn't attached to their OP toy and are mad because it got nerfed.
All the classes being balanced with one another is nothing but a good thing.
The way I see it is this: Lack of balance can ruin a game. Balance can't.
Of course, the most common retort I see to me posting this is "Well look at 4E!"...hence this thread.
Also, what does the GM vs PC gig have to do with balance? or people saying "Don't do what 4E did!" for that matter?
Well, the GM vs PC gig is the centre of PC balance as far as I'm concerned.
A Party of a Fighter, A Cleric, A Rogue and a Bard thrown into TRAP AND SNEAK DUNGEON will probably feel like the Rogue is hogging the utility spotlight.
Make that UNDEAD DUNGEON and watch the rogue feel useless.
As for "don't do what 4e did", they sacrificed flavour for alleged balance. They failed. I don't advocate the elimination of flavour for the sake of "balance". Some flavours may be weaker, but they're probably still fun and functional. 4e killed the weak flavours.
For me balance does not allways equal good or fun.... Palladium, Rolemaster, Shadowrun to name a few games have balance issues... All are good and fun games, I have a hankering for some Ninjas and Super Spies after watching a lot of Kung Fu movies on the weekend.
If everybody around the table are having a great time then game balance is not an issue.
And balance never ruins fun for anyone that wasn't attached to their OP toy and are mad because it got nerfed.
All the classes being balanced with one another is nothing but a good thing.
The way I see it is this: Lack of balance can ruin a game. Balance can't.
Of course, the most common retort I see to me posting this is "Well look at 4E!"...hence this thread.
Snakes and ladders is ultimately balanced. Do you want to roleplay snakes and ladders?
When the "Quest for Balance" compromises fun and flavour, time to abandon the grail. This is why the "chuck the gunslinger and the alchemist" threads bug me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A Party of a Fighter, A Cleric, A Rogue and a Bard thrown into TRAP AND SNEAK DUNGEON will probably feel like the Rogue is hogging the utility spotlight.
Unless the Bard is an Archaeologist.
And this misses the entire point of balance: That everyone is good in their niche. Yes, in a campaign built around a single class, one class' niche is better.
However, in a better balanced (and better made) campaign, each class' niche should have his moment given that each niche is useful in common circumstances.
However, there are some classes whose niche is either rare, not needed, or ALL THEY DO, which is a balance issue, much like there are some classes whose niche is "everything" and they are likewise unbalanced.
As for "killing the weaker flavors", this misses the point again. Balance is not about flavor. It is about mechanics. Nobody is advocating making the classes homogenous in flavor by balancing them. This is, in fact, a point I specifically call out in this thread. Things can be balanced without "eliminating their flavor".
Snakes and ladders is ultimately balanced. Do you want to roleplay snakes and ladders?
Would I like to RP a non-RPG?
No. What is your point here?
When the "Quest for Balance" compromises fun and flavour
This is the part you repeatedly fail to understand.
Seeking balance is not in any way somehow going to inherently sacrifice fun or flavor. This is a fallacy.
In the games I played nobody nerfed anybodies stuff, Rifts, Ninjas, TMNT, Robotech... We kicked arse and had a ball.
Rolemaster we played smart worked as a team and made sure we had the herbs or spells to reattach limbs.
Shadowrun - The street sam with the wired reflexes was king of the battlefield unless, the spellslinger could get the drop on you or the Rigger with the UAV mounting Panther Assault cannons got to you first from a mile up.
If you are just re-skinning the same character to balance a game then no its same same and boring.
"Look I can do something with a different name that does something similar to what you can do the same number of times a day you do..." It bleeds through, I felt it with 4E there was no sense of special and no sense of challenge.
When you strip back the veneer and see its all re-skinned variations on the same theme - whats the point?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But, speaking of semantics, I'm positive you and I have different definitions of balance, which is why arguing that balance is a good thing or even possible is a dead end. Balance is in the eye of the beholder, so why bother when the game is fun, flavourful and functional?
Would you design a weapon that gave a character +20 to every attack roll he made? (The infamous sword of true strike.)
Of course not. It is obviously imbalanced.
Now, do you do that when you write the rules, or do you put it in the rules and let the GM say no?
Obviously, you cannot write for every contingency, you cannot create a game with rules that rival the Encyclopedia Britannica. Some other forum-goers have often pointed out that the perfect cannot be the enemy of the good.
But you seem to be saying that because we will never be perfect, there is no reason to strive for improvement.
Rock/Paper/Scissors is a perfectly balanced game. (It's also too simple to be engaging for long, but that is beside the point.) However, the fact that you (the GM, the player, whatever) can chose to never throw Paper (table variance) does not mean the game is imbalanced.
The way a game is made engaging is adding to it. Thus we go to Rock Paper Scissors Lizard Spock. Strategy is added, but balance becomes more difficult.
For an RPG, so many variables have been added that achieving balance is a monumental task. That doesn't make it a worthless endeavor as I feel you are suggesting.
Putting 20 inch tires on one side of the car and 30 inch tires on the other, then telling the driver "It's your job to compensate" is unnecessary.
As for "don't do what 4e did", they sacrificed flavour for alleged balance. They failed. I don't advocate the elimination of flavour for the sake of "balance". Some flavours may be weaker, but they're probably still fun and functional. 4e killed the weak flavours.
They sacrificed all the flavor? Darn, better get rid of my idea for a genasi avenger in forgotten realms playing with my brothers goliath barbarian and his friends eladrin wizard. No sort of flavor or fun there. I mean, the wizard plays and is exactly the same as the barbarian here. There's certain no story going on in forgotten realms.
Snakes and ladders is ultimately balanced. Do you want to roleplay snakes and ladders?
Would I like to RP a non-RPG?
No. What is your point here?
I think the point is snakes and ladders is balanced, therefore perfect for me because I like balance. However, I'm of the opinion snakes are OP and need a nerf. They're much cooler than ladders too. Oh! and its not an RPG, and I don't think my ideas about relative balance in an RPG are really hurt by the existence of snake and ladders or the balance of such.
Triomega,
Functionality IS important.
A +20 sword of truestrike is non-functional. It also is illegal RAW, even in 3.0.
But I agree, when something hurts the functionality and fun, it needs to change. Bladesinging in 2e helped break the game.
Gunslinging has not broken anything.
Functionality should be the designers main focus, not balance, because balance means too many things to too many people.
Again, I think we're getting trapped in semantics, because I suspect balance and functionality are probably pretty close in definition for us.
|
Is the game REALLY out of balance?
Why isn't the eveyrbody playing the same character then?
I see a lot of talk about max/min and optimization, and if the Classes were seriuosly out of balance, these kind of player sowuld all be playing the same Class, or Classes, that get the uphill end of the playing field.
If these preferred Classes are the Core Four (Fighter, Cleric, Rogue, Wizard), then things probably aren't too far out of balance.
I suggest that instead of starting arguments with these kinds of threads, that you start by taking surveys to see if there really is a problem.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For an RPG, so many variables have been added that achieving balance is a monumental task. That doesn't make it a worthless endeavor as I feel you are suggesting.
QFT.
A balanced rpg is like a crime free city. They're both impossible ideals, but that doesn't make them worthless pursuits.
I see this come up for a lot of my houserules.
It's kind of annoying.
I've never played 4e, but I'm sure there's nothing in it that invalidates my own need to tweaks here and there.
Is the game REALLY out of balance?
Why isn't the eveyrbody playing the same character then?
I see a lot of talk about max/min and optimization, and if the Classes were seriuosly out of balance, these kind of player sowuld all be playing the same Class, or Classes, that get the uphill end of the playing field.
If these preferred Classes are the Core Four (Fighter, Cleric, Rogue, Wizard), then things probably aren't too far out of balance.
I suggest that instead of starting arguments with these kinds of threads, that you start by taking surveys to see if there really is a problem.
Because non-optimal does not mean un-fun. A lot of people have fun playing Rogues, even though Rogues are literally obsoleted by certain archetypes for other classes.
As well, just because there is unbalance, doesn't mean that one class is better than ALL of the others. It simply means there are large disparities between a number of classes.
However, if a class is always going to be inferior to another class with the same level of optimization, then there is an issue.
Also, there was a survey a while back. Most people here agreed the unbalanced classes were Fighter/Rogue/Monk as UP with Summoner as OP. Spellcasters were mostly given a pass because they're all equally OP.
Is the game REALLY out of balance?
Why isn't the eveyrbody playing the same character then?
Well, either no ones told them how to play yet or it isn't so awful that something is unplayable. That said, I still had people who wanted to play a monk or Soulknife in 3.5, even though those two classes had numerous reasons they were awful. I even once had a guy wanting to play a truenamer because they sounded cool, but he didn't really look at the class. On the flipside, I saw many DMs have a knee jerk reaction to Tome of Battle and psionics and said they were overpowered, and I also had one once that told me wizards were underpowered and druids were hippies and therefore not a threat. He was completely serious.
That said, not everyone is going to agree there is a problem. See that here. You see people who say fighters are good at skills, or nothing is wrong with fighters because they can fight, and that's all they personally want out of them. Adding a bit of utility probably wouldn't hurt, but some of those people actively speak against it for their own reasons. Can I prove with numbers they're wrong? Not really, because they want fighters to have low skill points and its just an opinion. Can I prove it would help fighters to have more skill points? of course! but that applies to any class really. Can I show you a high level wizard that shatters the campaign? Probably... but you have people saying that's fine for the game.
The Hardness 30 of the cage is nothing to sneeze at, however.
Well, Force Cage is 7th level spell. We can assume then minimum caster 13. It has "Hardness of 30 and a number of hit points equal to 20 per caster level." so Hardness 30 and 260 hp.
So assuming 12 seconds, we need to deal 260 hp ignoring hardness or something higher assuming hardness.Go0d part we can freely full attack.
Krust Anazizi my 18th level Armored Hulk/Totem Warrior Barbarian (granted 13th level he'd be weaker) Barbarian was made before they nerfed Totem Warrior (though I took A few feats for fun and not power), but he deals 2d8+43 per hit with 5 hits. So average 54 per hit so 1 rd I deal minus hardness only 120. It takes me 2.5 rounds.
Then again he has spell sunder to destroy it regardless (CMD 28, needs 38 for negating it). He has CMB +30 so he needs an 8.
So 18 seconds or 1 rd with spell sunder.
At some point master of the universe SHOULD be hands down better.And I dispute the fact that "Mundane Fighter guy" and "Master of the Universe" should even be in the same game.
There are plenty of ways Fighters could be made better without gettings spells or spell-likes but then everyone b&*$$es about how "OMG anime Wuxia nonsense in my suprsrs Pathfinder games!" is terrible.
The best way to deal with this presently is, sadly, GM fiat.
The high level fighter should be able to contribute narratively, but the main way to do that is to grant him kingdoms and alliances with outsiders that aren't RAW. If a fighter can impress the Genie king, then he can roll with a wizard. If not, it's Caramon vs. Raistlin.
Why not? I haven't actually seen the game in forever. What's a diviner?Mr. Sin,
Roleplaying is roleplaying. Your grand adventure in 4e could also be a great freeform game.
Too bad I can't play a pacifist diviner in it.
A spell caster focused on divination magics. Makes for a great strategist and detective.
But I needs to know mah fireballz in 4e to be a wizard. No pacifist detectives or non-violent strategists in 4e. One of the drawbacks to axing Vancian casting.
Of course, not an optimal build, but definitely capable of contributing in a valuable way in a pathfinder game.
4e hinders roles beyond striker, defender, leader and controller. Hile Troy of the Land isn't on the table.
FWIW, I played an (almost) pacifist cleric in 4E. He did damage maybe twice through the whole campaign. He had a whole bunch of utility spells in the form of rituals.
I dont think WotC actually took the flavor out of the game the way you're suggesting. They took it out of the rulebooks. (The flavor was predominantly PDF only for the first few years) although that changed in the later parts of the game's life.
|
At some point master of the universe SHOULD be hands down better.And I dispute the fact that "Mundane Fighter guy" and "Master of the Universe" should even be in the same game.
There are plenty of ways Fighters could be made better without gettings spells or spell-likes but then everyone b%~*!es about how "OMG anime Wuxia nonsense in my suprsrs Pathfinder games!" is terrible.
Care to offer some examples?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Care to offer some examples?
At some point master of the universe SHOULD be hands down better.And I dispute the fact that "Mundane Fighter guy" and "Master of the Universe" should even be in the same game.
There are plenty of ways Fighters could be made better without gettings spells or spell-likes but then everyone b%~*!es about how "OMG anime Wuxia nonsense in my suprsrs Pathfinder games!" is terrible.
Tome of Battle. Warblades had no magical abilities whatsoever. They had intellect synergy, 4+ skill points per level, and could only use the disciplines with extraordinary abilities instead of supernatural. They could do amazing things like ignore dr and hardness or give their teammates bonuses on a charge. The result was people exclaiming they were overpowered, or that they had crazy wuxia powers, they were too weeabo, or other not so nice things.
"Extraordinary" abilities? The same Warblade who, with a roar of effort, frees himself of light blindness by extinguishing the sun?
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The same Warblade who, with a roar of effort, frees himself of light blindness by extinguishing the sun?
That Warblade never existed. It was a delusional reading of the rules taken to absurd lengths.
You use Ironheart Surge to end your dazzled condition, and then the bright sun dazzles you again one round later.
"Extraordinary" abilities? The same Warblade who, with a roar of effort, frees himself of light blindness by extinguishing the sun?
Any maneuver is an extraordinary power unless otherwise noted in its description. The disciplines the warblade has access to are extraordinary only, in the mean time the swordsage gets to teleport and make nooses out of shadows and blow peoples heart up and the crusader is backed by divine power.
As TOZ said, pretty sure the warblades that blow up the sun are a misreading of the way that works. The maneuver in question was written oddly, and to be perfectly honest even I have trouble figuring it out sometimes. Ignoring the blowing up the sun reading, breaking a condition through some extreme effort and possibly a battlecry sounds like a really classic fantasy trope to me.
I was hoping referencing "with a roar of effort" would tip off that I was being a little tongue in cheek. The point is that regardless of (ex) (sp) or (su) tags, the warblade is capable of some pretty crazy stuff one could interpret as wuxia. Not AS flashy as the swordsage, but still pretty far outside of classic believablility.
I was hoping referencing "with a roar of effort" would tip off that I was being a little tongue in cheek. The point is that regardless of (ex) (sp) or (su) tags, the warblade is capable of some pretty crazy stuff one could interpret as wuxia. Not AS flashy as the swordsage, but still pretty far outside of classic believablility.
The thing is, smashing through walls and shrugging of effects are classic fantasy tropes. Its sort of weird they aren't touched on. In the meantime, the barbarian has superstitious and its line to defend himself against spells... Guy can literally smash spells, and eat magic.
I'm not one of the aforementioned players, so I can't explain why spell-eating barbarians aren't anime but neat shadow tricks are.
Ironheart Surge isn't the flashy bit I'm talking about though, the humorous misinterpretation was my absurdist joke of an example.
I'm not one of the aforementioned players, so I can't explain why spell-eating barbarians aren't anime but neat shadow tricks are.
Warblades don't do shadow tricks... That's sort of part of where people get the wuxia from. In the same book a lot of supernatural abilities were included, just not for the warblade. I love maneuvers, they gave martials some really nice things. The backdrop was a lot of martial training and temples though, and the other 2 classes happened to have similar abilities that were crazy stuff.
Anyways, the point was that if you give martials nice things people complain wasn't it?