TwinBahamut
First Post
Wow, a lot came up in response to my comments. I won't be able to respind to it all but I'll try to get some of the bigger points covered.
This may be a bit of a tangent, but I've always seen the fact that this choice isn't a real choice to be one of the core problems of D&D that needs to be addressed. The idea that a character should be defined by a set of numbers that could be randomly determined and describe various traits is actually somewhat incompatible with the idea that a character should be defined by a class that presumes certain stats for both mechanics and concept. D&D would work a lot better if your choice of stats determined your class (like I think some older editions might have done?) or if your class determined your stats (which has been mentioned a bit for 5E). Having them be totally independent causes a lot of problems for the game that are not really needed.
What needs to be balanced in the game is the choice of a player's "list of available options", not the "tactical use of options". Basically, most games give you two levels of choice. The first level is the choice between what options you can even attempt, and the second level is the moment-to-moment choices about how to use those previously chosen options. Every "list of available options" needs to be as equivalent as possible, though not every "tactical use of options" needs to be equivalent.
For example, the game Starcraft gives players three "lists of available options" to choose from: the three races of Zerg, Protoss, and Terrans. Each of these three races needs to be balanced. From there, each race provides a variety of tactical options which have different strengths and weaknesses and work in different situations with different mechanics, and that's perfectly fine, because the races are balanced.
As a different example, the black side and the white side need to be balanced in chess, but not every move or piece needs to be as good as the others. The fact that black's traditional right to make the first move gives it a slight imbalance (which is a valid and meaningful balance issue), but no one cares that a pawn is weaker and less valuable than the queen.
Basically, the choices made before the game starts, like class, race, and so forth, need to be balanced, not every moment-to-moment tactical choice. It's fine for a character to shine because they chose the right spell for the right moment, but its not okay for them to shine because they are the only person to even have the right spell for that moment due to picking a more powerful class before the game started.
Basically, the relative value and effectiveness of different players should be determined through their actions in the game, not because of what choices they made before the game started. The game shouldn't be rigged in favor of those who pick a stronger class, or rigged against those who pick a weaker class.
Back to dissecting your examples...
Ideally, the game should be well-balanced for the majority of situations that will be seen in the majority of campaigns. What that covers is anybody's guess, but that should be the target. It would probably take some rather extensive market research to really figure out what the scope of the game's balance should be, but it should certainly include everything the designer's consider important enough to the game to provide rules for in the PHB.
You are very right about Skill Challenges, though. The framework they provide is great for building balance between different options, and 5E would be well suited by improving upon and expanding those kinds of rules.
A commonly used example is that a druid's animal companion is mathematically superior to a fighter in every way, and a druid's wildshape form is pretty much just as strong. In other words, a single druid is just as effective as two fighters before you even factor in the class's spellcasting abilities, which are considerably powerful in their own right.
I'd explain in more depth, but I've got a lot more to cover in this post. PM me if you want me to explain this more thoroughly.
Will it make everything clearer to you if you understand that what you present as the example of what you wouldn't want is exactly what many people feel like we got with 3E? The 3E Fighter was a PC class with no special abilities and poor saves (and ultimately good BAB doesn't contribute as much as you'd expect). A great many 3E spells are very overpowered spells that can completely defeat or kill every enemy with no save, special component, or drawback. Older editions of D&D do indeed have that broad overall imbalance, rather than some fine mathematical issue. The imbalance lies at the heart of character concepts, rather than with a few mathematical mistakes.
Yes. If they have the same cost, then they should have the same amount of usefulness to the game. Why should it be otherwise?So, if I take ranks in Profession (Dishwasher), those should be equivalent to ranks in Hide and Move Silently?
Ideally, yes. If the game presents two major choices like class and ability scores, then it should be very flexible regarding how those two choices are combined.That if I have a fighter with an ability array of 8/9/9/17/18/18, it should be equivalent to a fighter with 18/17/18/9/9/8?
This may be a bit of a tangent, but I've always seen the fact that this choice isn't a real choice to be one of the core problems of D&D that needs to be addressed. The idea that a character should be defined by a set of numbers that could be randomly determined and describe various traits is actually somewhat incompatible with the idea that a character should be defined by a class that presumes certain stats for both mechanics and concept. D&D would work a lot better if your choice of stats determined your class (like I think some older editions might have done?) or if your class determined your stats (which has been mentioned a bit for 5E). Having them be totally independent causes a lot of problems for the game that are not really needed.
Not really. This will require a bit of explanation about what I mean by "choice," though...That if I do nothing but try to trip a gelatinous cube, the result of the battle should be the same as if I attacked it normally?
What needs to be balanced in the game is the choice of a player's "list of available options", not the "tactical use of options". Basically, most games give you two levels of choice. The first level is the choice between what options you can even attempt, and the second level is the moment-to-moment choices about how to use those previously chosen options. Every "list of available options" needs to be as equivalent as possible, though not every "tactical use of options" needs to be equivalent.
For example, the game Starcraft gives players three "lists of available options" to choose from: the three races of Zerg, Protoss, and Terrans. Each of these three races needs to be balanced. From there, each race provides a variety of tactical options which have different strengths and weaknesses and work in different situations with different mechanics, and that's perfectly fine, because the races are balanced.
As a different example, the black side and the white side need to be balanced in chess, but not every move or piece needs to be as good as the others. The fact that black's traditional right to make the first move gives it a slight imbalance (which is a valid and meaningful balance issue), but no one cares that a pawn is weaker and less valuable than the queen.
Basically, the choices made before the game starts, like class, race, and so forth, need to be balanced, not every moment-to-moment tactical choice. It's fine for a character to shine because they chose the right spell for the right moment, but its not okay for them to shine because they are the only person to even have the right spell for that moment due to picking a more powerful class before the game started.
Basically, the relative value and effectiveness of different players should be determined through their actions in the game, not because of what choices they made before the game started. The game shouldn't be rigged in favor of those who pick a stronger class, or rigged against those who pick a weaker class.
Back to dissecting your examples...
If those options are presented as being equal, then yes.That my halfling barbarian wielding a foot-long greataxe should have an equivalent fighting capability to your half-orc barbarian with a six-foot axe?
This is equivalent to the choice between the pawn and the queen I used in my chess analogy above. This turns more into a balance problem if you need to choose between knowing magic missile and knowing disintegrate, but that hasn't been true in any edition of D&D so this doesn't apply.That if I cast Magic Missile on the Tarrasque, it should be equivalent to casting Disintegrate?
You've got that backwards. A rigged choice isn't even a choice at all. If you have a choice between two good classes and three bad classes, then you effectively have a choice between two classes. On the other hand, balanced options can be meaningful and interesting choices as well.All choices shouldn't be equal; that defeats the whole point of having choice.
Well, call it what you want then. I call it balance.That sounds more like transparency than balance.
The problem is you run afoul of those "before the game starts" choices I was talking about earlier. Players will be biased for or against from the game's start simply because of class imbalance. A fighter will have an uphill battle and a wizard will get through on easy-street. Having the DM treat everyone the same actually makes the imbalance stand out even more, since most DMs keep imbalance under control by working hard against the powerful classes and giving advantages to weaker classes. And, of course, treating the players unequally in order to balance out imbalanced classes has all kinds of negative consequences, so this is something of a negative feedback loop.That's easily accomplished. Just give everyone the same PHB, and have the DM treat them all the same. Regardless of what's in it, everyone has the same chance to have fun. Not really the most useful criterion.
I wish you'd stop it with this "nothing more than an opinion" nonsense. Who cares if it's an opinion? Actually, let's call it what it is: an argument and an idea. Perhaps you should stop dismissing it as "just an opinion" and start treating it as what it also is. You're not the kind of person who disregards something like the Law of Universal Gravitation as "just an opinion" are you?In any case, as you say you're "taking a stab at it". The point is that balance is nothing more than an opinion.
You are certainly right that D&D's balance doesn't need to be all-inclusive of every feasible scenario. I don't think it should be too limited, though. D&D is very flexible as far as covering a variety of campaign styles is concerned, so I don't think the scope it is balanced for should be narrowed too far.I think it's reasonable for a game to take for granted that it will or won't be used in certain ways. For example, I don't think it's very important that D&D combat be balanced for bar-room brawls, or professional boxing or wrestling matches. The combat rules take for granted that lethal or near-lethal damage is being inflicted, and that is fine. (I know that 4e permits the last blow to be non-lethal, but this still won't produce very satisfactory sparring rules. It's one thing for a player whose PC drops an NPC using Burning Hands to declare "That NPC is only unconscious, not dead"; but it would nevetheless be absurd to have that PC use Burning Hands in a sporting duel - it is the player, not the PC, who enjoys the power to decide what "0 hp" means.)
D&D has historically been narrow in other ways too. For example, "exploration" in D&D has almost always focused on a fairly narrow conception of dungeon exploration. Look at Moldvay Basic, for example, or Gygaxian AD&D: rules for secret doors, finding traps, listening at and opening doors, etc. But there are no rules for wandering around cities, for exploring and understanding museums or galleries, for plotting sea voyages, etc (which might be important in other games, say Cyberpunk, Cthulhu or a Pirate game).
And in AD&D "social" is confined mostly to the loyalty and morale of soldiers. There are no rules for dancing, for fast-talking or the like.
One thing I like about 4e is that it has working action resolution systems that are more expansive than these D&D traditions. And that, as a side effect, do deal with the unexpected better. Part of what lets them do that is there robustness as a framework (DCs by level, plus the skill challenge success/failure structure). If you are thinking of that as one feature of 4e's balance, I'll happily agree.
Ideally, the game should be well-balanced for the majority of situations that will be seen in the majority of campaigns. What that covers is anybody's guess, but that should be the target. It would probably take some rather extensive market research to really figure out what the scope of the game's balance should be, but it should certainly include everything the designer's consider important enough to the game to provide rules for in the PHB.
You are very right about Skill Challenges, though. The framework they provide is great for building balance between different options, and 5E would be well suited by improving upon and expanding those kinds of rules.
Well, I don't know what to say to convince you if you don't believe they are imbalanced... I will say that the balance problems in the game are very well documented and have been heavily discussed, and once you look for them they are pretty extreme. The rules don't really break if you play with certain common playstyles (wizards who mostly use fireball are weak enough to be balanced, and there is nothing wrong with healer clerics), but if you step outside of that then things can get crazy.I have heard this assertion before. I played 3e for several years (as well as its offspring, Pathfinder) and found nothing obviously imbalanced with it. I would like a fairly detailed rundown on some of the major balance problems.
A commonly used example is that a druid's animal companion is mathematically superior to a fighter in every way, and a druid's wildshape form is pretty much just as strong. In other words, a single druid is just as effective as two fighters before you even factor in the class's spellcasting abilities, which are considerably powerful in their own right.
I'd explain in more depth, but I've got a lot more to cover in this post. PM me if you want me to explain this more thoroughly.
It certainly is a complex issue, but I think the contribution angle is the best one. Every party member should be equally important to the team's overall success. At the very least, I think this is usually the idea of balance that most people who desire balance are interested in. Damage is very much secondary to agency and ability to contribute and be involved.That said, there seem to be several very different definitions of balance being floated around. Some people see balance in terms of combat damage output. Others see balance in terms of contribution to every adventuring day. The exact definition of balance in a role playing game seems somewhat elusive.
You are indeed right that, as long as each player gets to contribute, then the game is fine. That's the important part of balance, and is really what balance means in a cooperative game. I'd add that I don't think it is fine if one class contributes all the time and another only contributes once in a while, and that evening that out is the key goal of balance.I agree that in a competitive game, balance is extremely important. If D&D were focused on player versus player combat, I would have balance as one of the most important issues. However, in a cooperative role-playing game, I see complete balance as less of an issue. As long as each player gets a chance to contribute to the game once and a while, I don't care if classes are completely "balanced" against each other.
Okay, you clearly understand the central issue perfectly well. I can work with this.I actually do agree with the idea of balance to a limited extent. An obviously underpowered choice (e.g. a peasant PC class with no special abilities and poor BAB and saves) would tend not to be played very often. A very overpowered spell or feat (e.g. a spell that completely killed every enemy with no save, special component, or drawback) would wreck most adventures. However, when I hear about talk of balance, it generally seems to be in a detailed mathematical sense rather than a broad overall sense.
Will it make everything clearer to you if you understand that what you present as the example of what you wouldn't want is exactly what many people feel like we got with 3E? The 3E Fighter was a PC class with no special abilities and poor saves (and ultimately good BAB doesn't contribute as much as you'd expect). A great many 3E spells are very overpowered spells that can completely defeat or kill every enemy with no save, special component, or drawback. Older editions of D&D do indeed have that broad overall imbalance, rather than some fine mathematical issue. The imbalance lies at the heart of character concepts, rather than with a few mathematical mistakes.
I think that Ars Magica provides a good example of what people would prefer for such a story. Ars Magica is built on the idea that mages are more powerful than other characters, but it balances that out by explicitly not treating it as an equivalent option to non-magical characters. In that game, every player plays both a mage and a non-mage character, so the imbalance between mages and non-mages is never translated to an imbalance in options between players. This is a solution that preserves the story but is still fair and fun for everyone. Many balance problems can be solved with solutions like this.Finally, I wonder how people feel about balance when it comes to settings where certain elements are supposed to be unbalanced because of the story. For example in 2e Dark Sun, defilers gained experience twice the rate of their good aligned counterparts. That showed that with magic it was easier to walk the path of corruption - a good aligned wizard had to have patience and discipline. It was very unbalanced from a mechanical standpoint, but it made sense in terms of the setting.
Last edited: