Balance vs. Diversity

[Alnag]

First let me tell you this - despite the following I still like 4e. But it is not an uncritical admiration. I have my objections. Here is one...

Recent information seems to tell me this. Designers strive to create balance. Every and each class, race or whatever has something to do, it is good at its job and so on. That works. But it works for a price. The price is diversity.

Take a step away. Take the fluff around away. All the characters do the same. They are balanced but they are depressingly similar. They count different abilities, they use powers with different names but in general all of them has seriously similar stats. There is no crunch difference at all.

You are weak? Nevermind, you still strike hard. You are clumsy - never mind, still you are pretty fast reacting. And so on. The question is... do we need six abilities? Nope. Three would be enough. And if three abilities are enough, do we need derivate three another numbers from them (aka Defenses)? I guess no. This is sacred cow still living, pretending a difference although there is none.

This is well ilustrated with the question - what is Intelligence good for actually?

The pros are still strong, but the lost of a bit of diversity is alarming a bit.

EDIT: I should add, that the diversity is strong in skills.

 

[Li Shenron]

I suppose that finding a good compromise between balance and diversity is one of the main design purposes.

I know that I actually enjoyed the extreme diversity of previous editions. Playing a fighter, a rogue, or a spellcaster were VERY different things. I like that because it multiplies my own fun by three, since the game changes when I make a new character.

But I also know that I am lucky, because my gaming groups have always been made by people that rarely if ever were interested in studying the rules too carefully to find combos or "powerplaying", which is the gaming style that tends to highlight every balance problem. We rarely had a balance problem in our games (only some specific problems with a few spells or feats...) because we never really looked for them

So I understand why balance is more important than diversity for most gamers. And anyway, they can get diversity from switching edition instead of switching class...

 

[Alnag]

Li Shenron: Yeah. I really agree with that one. I think we are loosing a bit of diversity, I am not sure how much. Maybe it wouldn't be as much as it seems. The diversity of switch is important but will eventually fade away.

I know why people wellcome balance, I see this issue severe as well, I will just miss the diverisity a bit...

 

[jaer]

First let me tell you this - despite the following I still like 4e. But it is not an uncritical admiration. I have my objections. Here is one...

Recent information seems to tell me this. Designers strive to create balance. Every and each class, race or whatever has something to do, it is good at its job and so on. That works. But it works for a price. The price is diversity.

Take a step away. Take the fluff around away. All the characters do the same. They are balanced but they are depressingly similar. They count different abilities, they use powers with different names but in general all of them has seriously similar stats. There is no crunch difference at all.

You are weak? Nevermind, you still strike hard. You are clumsy - never mind, still you are pretty fast reacting. And so on. The question is... do we need six abilities? Nope. Three would be enough. And if three abilities are enough, do we need derivate three another numbers from them (aka Defenses)? I guess no. This is sacred cow still living, pretending a difference although there is none.

This is well ilustrated with the question - what is Intelligence good for actually?

The pros are still strong, but the lost of a bit of diversity is alarming a bit.

EDIT: I should add, that the diversity is strong in skills.

However, in the same line of thinking, this makes you more diverse. If a wizard no longer needs dex to (a) hit with spells, (b) increase his AC, and (c) increase his reflex, then not every wizard is going to try to take a high dex. With naught but a high int, he had coverred some of these things, which leaves him more options.

Wizard 1 might decide he can not both with dex and play a strong wizard (and hopefully there will be some feats to allow him to flesh out this idea more) while wizard 2 decides he'd rather play a dash spellcaster and ups his cha instead and focuses on cha skills and feats.

In 3e, diversity was lost because it was easy to list attributes in order of power for a class. A wizard need int for spells and DC, dex for a few reasons, con for hp and fort, and after that...whatever you have left on the other three. Now, a wizard needs Int...there might be a secondary stat that would be of benefit to some of his powers, but it does not seem as necessary, which in turn makes the wizard more diverse.

So far, I see a leveling of the playing field between stats...and that makes for much more diverse character creation.

 

[Belphanior]

(snip)

So far, I see a leveling of the playing field between stats...and that makes for much more diverse character creation.

On top of that, think of race/class combinations.
Half-orc wizard? Halfling paladin? Dwarven bard? Not exactly the most potent of choices, right? You'd probably be better off with a human in each of those cases.

From what we can tell 4E still has optimal choices, but nothing to punish you for picking the "wrong" character you want to play. The elf is best suited for rogues or rangers, but why not try a fighter? The bonus to Dex helps there too, the attack re-roll is fantastic, and superior speed helps in reaching allies that need your help immediately.

 

[Ulthwithian]

While I am very pro-4E, the argument presented that there is no 'wrong' race to play for a certain class is incorrect when considered from a crunch perspective. Consider, if you will, the following two races for consideration when doing a Str-based class.

Race 1: +2 Str, +2 Con
Race 2: +2 Dex, +2 Con
(everything else is equal, to make this the simplest comparison possible)

Which is the better race for playing the Str-based class? Clearly Race 1. This can be shown even more clearly by creating an opportunity loss matrix for them. Is Race 2 penalized for choosing to play a Str-based class? Not overtly, no, but he is certainly worse at it than Race 1. In other words, there is no explicit penalty for choosing a specific race/class combination (like a Half-Orc Wizard in 3.5), but there certainly is an implicit penalty.

I think the fallacy in logic is based on people looking for a 'norm' or 'average' when there isn't one. There is only a comparative issue.

Now, is 4E more level than 3.X in this? Almost certainly. I find the claim that there is no penalty in race selection (another word choice would opportunity cost) to be more marketing-driven than anything else.

 

[malraux]

snip

While I'll agree that there's still a cost to playing against type, it seems to me that the cost is much less than 3.5, which is a good thing. More importantly, it seems like the cost in mechanical power does not pay off only in RP potential, but will open up different mechanical power options as well. Though this is an assessment made without seeing the whole rule set, so ask again in june.

 

[Belphanior]

While I am very pro-4E, the argument presented that there is no 'wrong' race to play for a certain class is incorrect when considered from a crunch perspective. Consider, if you will, the following two races for consideration when doing a Str-based class. (snip)

This assumes that ability scores are the end-all-be-all of character effectiveness, something that is so obviously not the case it's self-evident I should think.

Returning again to the elf, he doesn't get a +2 Str bonus. But he does have an attack re-roll once per encounter, better perception checks, lowlight vision, better speed, better AC & RefDef & WillDef, shifting through difficult terrain...

So the elf can't beat the Dragonborn at the "have a very high Strength" competition.
That doesn't mean he loses at the "be a good Fighter" competition. He'll just be good in a different way.

 

[jaer]

So the elf can't beat the Dragonborn at the "have a very high Strength" competition.
That doesn't mean he loses at the "be a good Fighter" competition. He'll just be good in a different way.

This is very well said!

 

[LostSoul]

How you describe what is happening is important.