Can somebody explain the bias against game balance?
billd91
Not your screen monkey (he/him)
It's still tied into levels, though. Your Level 1 character can't have a +18 skill check on something, even with a Skill Focus feat.
Highly skilled characters must be high-level, per the mechanics. Along with that increase in level comes an increase in HPs, saving throws, and combat skill.
Mind you - I actually run a d20 variant that emphasizes skills (Call of Cthulhu d20), so I kinda know of what I speak.My solution is to basically ignore those rules for NPCs, and it works great. But if I can ignore the rules to get what I want in a d20 game, it's disingenuous to say that I can't also ignore the rules in a 4e game.
-O
Part of the point that I think UngeheuerLich implies is: why would you need a +18 for a lot of skills in the first place? Simply put, in 3.5, you don't. Middling levels of skill ranks can get you a lot of mileage. Very skilled NPCs really don't need a lot of levels to be decent enough at the relatively mundane tasks they engage in, same for PCs with a lot of the same skills.
Raven Crowking
First Post
A keen observation!
(OFF TOPIC: BTW, where is Verona? I was raised in Wisconsin, spending about half my boyhood in Pembine [near the UP] and the Hartland/Milwaukee/Caladonia areas. I was just up near Beaver Dam the other week visiting my parents in Theresa.)
RC
Krensky
First Post
I'm still perplexed why I'd want to use D&D for a skill-based game, when there are actual skill-based RPGs out there.
If I want to run a game with rat-catchers, courtiers, field medics, and so on, I'm much more likely to pull out WFRP2 than any edition of D&D. GURPS would probably also be a great fit, though I'm frankly about 15 years out of practice on it.
Why I don't use D&D as by d20 based fantasy game, and not the point.
This whole '4e can handle anything, here's how' bit is missing the point. Why does balance have to be a straight jacket? Why does Mr Know It All have to wait until level 12 (or whatever) to actually be Mr Know It All? The only answer I see is: Because he must also rock the battlefield. Mr Know It All doesn't want to fight though. He never trained to fight. He trained to be a skill monkey who knows all the answers, can stitch the fighters back together, and jury rig or build almost anything. He's not made of glass and isn't worthless with a weapon, but he is not a combatant. The balance goal of 4e denies him excellence at what he wants, and forces more competence at what he's not interested in then he desires.
Yeah, not playing 4e regularly or owning any books beyond the first core set, this doesn't really mean anything to me.
The point is that the balance the OP is accusing people of attacking is not desirable for many people because they prefer a different game style and a view balance and the game differently.
Zinovia
Explorer
"Balance" means different things to different people. As is so often the case, we're not using the word in quite the same way.
Some feel that balance is equivalent to a lack of distintive flavorful options and the freedom to do what they want with their character concept. I don't agree that balance forces this. If you want the freedom to do or be *anything*, then don't play a class and level-based system; use one that is skills based and all point buy. Class-based systems like D&D encourage the playing of archetypes, and that is what they are good at. GURPS and the like are better if you want ultimate freedom in how you build your character.
Balance can mean having characters that are all competent, but not all the same. My 3.5 rogue started out 2 points worse in BAB than the paladin at level 1, and wound up 8 points worse at 15th level, with half the number of attacks per round, as well as lacking most of my damage against oozes, constructs, undead, etc. He hit on a 2 when I needed a 10. By that point, there wasn't anything my character could do out of combat that a wizard couldn't do better. So how is that balanced? How is it more fun or flavorful? When does that character get to shine? It's not a lack of opportunities placed by the DM; his hands are tied. The system itself forces this discrepancy because by that level there isn't anything the character is good at that someone else can't do as well or better. It's unbalanced.
A claim has been made that everyone is good at everything in 4E. It's true that there isn't a 25 point discrepancy in skill values, but you still wind up at higher levels with a substantial difference between skills someone is good at, and skills they aren't, and there are still things that can only be done if you are trained in a given skill. The charisma based character with the right background and trained in diplomacy can easily have a bonus of 18 or greater (up to 22 with a feat and a starting 18 pre-racial bonus in CHA) at 11th level, vs someone who isn't good at it, and has a 4 at the same level.
Just because you get your half-level to skills doesn't mean you're *good* at them. You just suck less as you level up, and it doesn't by any means keep pace with the characters that specialize in that skill. It's ironic that there are some people who feel even that gap is too much, and have made house-rules so that you don't keep getting relatively better at your "good" skills than your companions, while others feel it isn't enough of a gap and everyone is good at everything.
Balance is too often seen as synonymous with bland homogeneity, and it's in that context that it is seen as negative and something to be avoided. I use it to mean "Not sucking at everything compared to the other characters in the group" and thus see it in a positive light. Balance is as balance does.
Some feel that balance is equivalent to a lack of distintive flavorful options and the freedom to do what they want with their character concept. I don't agree that balance forces this. If you want the freedom to do or be *anything*, then don't play a class and level-based system; use one that is skills based and all point buy. Class-based systems like D&D encourage the playing of archetypes, and that is what they are good at. GURPS and the like are better if you want ultimate freedom in how you build your character.
Balance can mean having characters that are all competent, but not all the same. My 3.5 rogue started out 2 points worse in BAB than the paladin at level 1, and wound up 8 points worse at 15th level, with half the number of attacks per round, as well as lacking most of my damage against oozes, constructs, undead, etc. He hit on a 2 when I needed a 10. By that point, there wasn't anything my character could do out of combat that a wizard couldn't do better. So how is that balanced? How is it more fun or flavorful? When does that character get to shine? It's not a lack of opportunities placed by the DM; his hands are tied. The system itself forces this discrepancy because by that level there isn't anything the character is good at that someone else can't do as well or better. It's unbalanced.
A claim has been made that everyone is good at everything in 4E. It's true that there isn't a 25 point discrepancy in skill values, but you still wind up at higher levels with a substantial difference between skills someone is good at, and skills they aren't, and there are still things that can only be done if you are trained in a given skill. The charisma based character with the right background and trained in diplomacy can easily have a bonus of 18 or greater (up to 22 with a feat and a starting 18 pre-racial bonus in CHA) at 11th level, vs someone who isn't good at it, and has a 4 at the same level.
Just because you get your half-level to skills doesn't mean you're *good* at them. You just suck less as you level up, and it doesn't by any means keep pace with the characters that specialize in that skill. It's ironic that there are some people who feel even that gap is too much, and have made house-rules so that you don't keep getting relatively better at your "good" skills than your companions, while others feel it isn't enough of a gap and everyone is good at everything.
Balance is too often seen as synonymous with bland homogeneity, and it's in that context that it is seen as negative and something to be avoided. I use it to mean "Not sucking at everything compared to the other characters in the group" and thus see it in a positive light. Balance is as balance does.
Last edited:
Raven Crowking
First Post
A simple example of the problems that come with maintaining balance throughout a game can be demonstrated with the simple game of Snakes & Ladders.
In Snakes & Ladders, everyone starts the same. No balance problems.
To go, though, someone must roll first. This is when the first imbalance occurs. We can change the rules, though, to ensure that everyone moves at the same time. Thus, if multiple people hit the end on the same "turn" they all win.
So, everyone rolls. Bob rolls a 1 and Sue rolls a 6. They are imbalanced. Worse, Charles rolls a "3" and ends up climbing a ladder. Whoa! Really striking imbalance.
In fact, the only way to eliminate this imbalance is to remove the snakes, the ladders, and the dice. Now everyone marches in lockstep across the board, no one feels left out by a bad roll, there is no imbalance, and everyone wins.
Much better game, right?
Well, strangely, not everyone would agree that it is. Marching in lockstep isn't all that much fun for some people. No element of chance isn't all that much fun for others. Still more might be bored silly by an exercise to which the outcome is already known.
So, we revise the board so that the players cannot see the next squares until they reach them. The game is no longer about seeing how chance moves the pieces across the board, it is about the reveal of the cool board design as the pieces move along.
Again, some folks might find this dissatisfying.
RC
In Snakes & Ladders, everyone starts the same. No balance problems.
To go, though, someone must roll first. This is when the first imbalance occurs. We can change the rules, though, to ensure that everyone moves at the same time. Thus, if multiple people hit the end on the same "turn" they all win.
So, everyone rolls. Bob rolls a 1 and Sue rolls a 6. They are imbalanced. Worse, Charles rolls a "3" and ends up climbing a ladder. Whoa! Really striking imbalance.
In fact, the only way to eliminate this imbalance is to remove the snakes, the ladders, and the dice. Now everyone marches in lockstep across the board, no one feels left out by a bad roll, there is no imbalance, and everyone wins.
Much better game, right?
Well, strangely, not everyone would agree that it is. Marching in lockstep isn't all that much fun for some people. No element of chance isn't all that much fun for others. Still more might be bored silly by an exercise to which the outcome is already known.
So, we revise the board so that the players cannot see the next squares until they reach them. The game is no longer about seeing how chance moves the pieces across the board, it is about the reveal of the cool board design as the pieces move along.
Again, some folks might find this dissatisfying.
RC
billd91
Not your screen monkey (he/him)
We're right off the southwest corner of Madison.
Garthanos
Arcadian Knight
There is flexibility in 4e its flexibility has a design price in the form of feat cost/background cost usually... for the paladin to have that ability you describe he had to spend design choice resources.
There is also genre elements at work... in say the classic pulp genre Just about any adventurer can punch out the bad guys even an other wise mild mannered school marm.(proficient in fisticuffs? or lucky as hell and built as proficient with fisticuffs)
Obryn
Hero
That's not really my point, actually - I was just answering your specific questions, and clarifying a bit.
I don't think 4e is the best system for a skill-heavy game, or any game in which combat is rare at best. I think there are better systems for those sorts of games, and I'd encourage anyone looking to run a skill-heavy game to look at those, first. Trying to make 4e work well for that sort of game is like jamming a square peg into a round hole - it can be done, but you're losing a lot. As I mentioned, I'd recommend WFRP2, some FATE variety, or GURPS. I'm unfamiliar with FantasyCraft, but if it fills your requirements, that's awesome.
Like I said, there are better games to model this than 4e - or, IMO, any of the other D&D flavors.
If they don't like the 4e playstyle, and if 4e doesn't fit their requirements, they should, indeed, be playing something else. OTOH, I think 4e works great for what I do with it, and don't think it needs rules expansions to allow for total noncombatant PCs.
This is absolutely not to say that you can't do all sorts of crazy stuff with 3e or 4e or any other game. I just think, like I've said over multiple posts for over a year, that game systems matter and that you're best off picking a game system which best fits the kind of game you and your players want to run, rather than trying to force a system to run a campaign it's not particularly well-suited for.
-O
Desdichado
Hero
I've never seen any evidence of a bias against game balance.
There is, however, an indifference to game balance amongst some, and a sense that too narrow a focus on game balance has dampened a lot of elements of the game that are "fun." I can understand, have witnessed, and to some extent, feel that myself.
Although to be honest with you, I feel that much more about Blood Bowl than I do about D&D.
Similar Threads
