What do you do without balance?

[Ariosto]

Of course, no version of WotC-D&D is, by RAW, anywhere near ideal for sandbox play (IMHO). Hence, the memes that support the sandbox paradigm might be dying out (or never have arisen) in some quarters.

That paradigm was part of the context in which the potential power of wizards (and weakness of level-limited non-humans) was clearly fair for all players, I think.

I wonder whether WotC really meant to keep that imbalance in 3E, although some aspects of the design seem obviously to encourage it (as compared with 1st edition AD&D). The original D&D set clearly spelled out that high-level MUs were exceptionally powerful figures, but I don't recall such a notice in the AD&D PHB. I don't recall a claim that classes were equally powerful, either!

Putting a greater emphasis on combat and "balancing" that aspect looks like a key approach in 4E. There seems to be more broadly an attempt not only at fairness in opportunity but at less variation in outcomes.

The "spotlight balance" issue brings this to mind: In many games, one can take a "disadvantage" such as poor eyesight and in exchange get some sort of "advantage" (such as better skill ratings). However, the disadvantage is not really that if what one is after is a character that gets more attention; any notable quality is likely to get more attention!

 

[Fanaelialae]

I don't know about this one, I've seen the argument that there are fighter builds that out strike the Warlock and Rogue in pure damage capability. Also as more classes come out it does seem as if more overlap is almost inevitable, and finally unless strict balance is always maintained... classes in the same role may have varying levels of effectiveness...like the Invoker who is held up as an example of a better "controller" than the Wizard.

From what I've seen, those fighter builds all were based upon the assumption that the DM would provoke opportunity attacks from the Fighter in a rather nonsensical manner. Additionally, too many people forget that being a striker isn't only about dealing damage (because if that were the case every class would be a striker). It's also about having the mobility to strike behind the enemy front-line in order to destroy dangerous but squishy targets (like artillery).

The designers have already admitted that they borked the Wizard's design a little. Presumably, next month's Arcane Power will help to remedy the situation. A better comparison would have been the Invoker vs the Druid.

But if you can build an encounter that favors certain roles... doesn't this fall in favor of the spotlight being just as dependent upon the DM as any earlier edition?

No, because the advice in the DMG tells you how to avoid doing that (you can reverse engineer it though; no system with a human component is foolproof after all). As long as you follow the advice in the DMG for building balanced encounters (which really is very simple) the system takes care of the rest. The Wizard can't cast a few spells to suddenly take over the Defender's role, for example, so the DM doesn't have to worry protecting the Fighter's "defender-hood". Admittedly, many people claim that this did not happen in previous editions, but a significant number have claimed that it did, so it is pertinent (since it suggests that this affected some significant percentage of groups out there).

And here I totally disagree, much as people claim that niches are preserved in 4e, I think it's easy for a character to step on another's toes if their niche isn't based in combat. A Ranger can easily out thief a Rogue... in fact as long as a class has an attribute focus that coincides with the attribute for the skill(s), it's trivial to spend a feat and usurp a skill-based role in 4e especially with Backgrounds, skill focus, skill training etc. being optional ways to surpass another PC.

I think you are exaggerating the ease with which a Ranger can out thief the Rogue. For starters, this is only even pertinent to a subset of Rangers (since melee Rangers are Str based). Secondly, he is spending at least one more feat than the rogue to accomplish this (to train Thievery, which rogues get automatically), which means that that Rogue is now a better striker (assuming the Rogue spends this extra feat to improve his striker damage rather than expand his options). Finally, Rogues can select powers that assure the Ranger will never be his equal (PHB pg 119, Fleeting Ghost and Quick Fingers).

Can a Ranger who focuses on being a thief be a better thief than a Rogue who neglects that aspect of his character? Absolutely. Does this demonstrate a lack of Spotlight Balance? I say no, because the Rogue who wants to be a master thief will always be a step or two ahead of any Ranger "competition". Just because a Ranger who wants to be a competent thief can be, doesn't make the Rogue any less special.

Yeah, I'm just not seeing this conclusion at all... spotlight balance, especially with skill challenges and the ease with which one can raise skills (which may or may not conceptually have anything to do with your niche) to high levels, IMO, do much to disprove this conclusion.

IMO, this is simply an indication that they were unwilling to craft a system tyrannized by Conceptual Balance, but rather used a somewhat more balanced approach. Want a Ranger who is good at thieving? Feasible. However, the Rogue who focuses on combat will be a more effective Striker, and one who focuses on thieving will always have an edge on you in that department.

Which, in turn, suggests that flexibility of character creation has not been utterly sacrificed to the gawds of Conceptual Balance after all.

 

[Imaro]

From what I've seen, those fighter builds all were based upon the assumption that the DM would provoke opportunity attacks from the Fighter in a rather nonsensical manner. Additionally, too many people forget that being a striker isn't only about dealing damage (because if that were the case every class would be a striker). It's also about having the mobility to strike behind the enemy front-line in order to destroy dangerous but squishy targets (like artillery).

I thought it was the Tempest Fighter build along with other particular weapon builds that could accomplish this (and I honestly don't remember them being based on silly OA's)... but if you say it's necessary to provoke numerous OA's for this to be accomplished, I don't have time to check it tonight (of course tomorrow is a different story).

The designers have already admitted that they borked the Wizard's design a little. Presumably, next month's Arcane Power will help to remedy the situation. A better comparison would have been the Invoker vs the Druid.

So my point is invalid... because the designers admitted it (after how long since the Wizard has been out?). I don't see how that in any way isn't a valid comparison. The fact of the matter is that everyone will not purchase Arcane Power to get an eratta'd Wizard and this won't be the last time a class of the same role is considered, overall, better than others in the same role (cough!*Ranger*cough! vs. Rogue or Warlock*cough!).

No, because the advice in the DMG tells you how to avoid doing that (you could technically reverse engineer it though; no system with a human component is foolproof after all). As long as you follow the advice in the DMG for building balanced encounters (which really is very simple) the system takes care of the rest. The Wizard can't cast a few spells to suddenly take over the Defender's role, for example, so the DM doesn't have to worry protecting the Fighter's "defender-hood". Admittedly, many people claim that this did not happen in previous editions, but a significant number have claimed that it did, so it is pertinent (since it suggests that this affected some significant percentage of groups out there).

Wait a minute... your argument is that it's out of the DM's hands not because the problem doesn't exist but because the DMG tells you how to customize your encounters for the group you have... The DM is still in control of it, particular encounters have to be custom made for particular roles and a DM that doesn't want to follow this advice will still have the problem.

I think you are exaggerating the ease with which a Ranger can out thief the Rogue. For starters, this is only even pertinent to a subset of Rangers (since melee Rangers are Str based). Secondly, he is spending at least one more feat than the rogue to accomplish this (to train Thievery, which rogues get automatically), which means that that Rogue is now a better striker (assuming the Rogue spends this extra feat to improve his striker damage rather than expand his options). Finally, Rogues can select powers that assure the Ranger will never be his equal (PHB pg 119, Fleeting Ghost and Quick Fingers).

Can a Ranger who focuses on being a thief be a better thief than a Rogue who neglects that aspect of his character? Absolutely. Does this demonstrate a lack of Spotlight Balance? I say no, because the Rogue who wants to be a master thief will always be a step or two ahead of any Ranger "competition". Just because a Ranger who wants to be a competent thief can be, doesn't make the Rogue any less special.

A Ranger with a focus on Dex spends one feat to become equal to the Rogue in Thievery, now since there's a limited number of ways to increase a skill bonus (skill training, background, skill focus), a Ranger will eventually be as good as the Rogue is in Thievery albeit possibly take a little longer. now how many feats does a Rogue have to spend to excel over the Ranger...

IMO, this is simply an indication that they were unwilling to craft a system tyrannized by Conceptual Balance, but rather used a somewhat more balanced approach. Want a Ranger who is good at thieving? Feasible. However, the Rogue who focuses on combat will be a more effective Striker, and one who focuses on thieving will always have an edge on you in that department.

Which, in turn, suggests that flexibility of character creation has not been sacrificed to the gawds of Conceptual Balance after all.

Nice use of hyperbole..."tyranized"...I don't know if it was necessarily tyranny...

The Ranger can equal the Rogue in Thievery by spending 1 extra feat...

For the record the Ranger will still be a better striker because he can hit from a distance better than the Rogue, has a wider range of weapons he can use with his powers, and is all around more versatile and deals more damage in less specific circumstances (Hunter Quarry vs. Sneak Attack) than the Rogue does, can wear better armor than the Rogue, etc.. In fact some of these things the Rogue can't even alleviate by using feats... he's stuck with them.

That seems like alot more than 1 feat for a Rogue to come close to taking the Rangers niche.

So yeah the Ranger is flexible enough to basically take the Rogue's niche, but the Rogue just can't take the Ranger's place. That's not flexibility so much as it is two classes with the same role and one being superior.

 

[Ycore Rixle]

How much balance would you be willing to forgo before you'd no longer be satisfied with the game?

(For the purpose that I using it here I define balance as "when presented with two or more similar mechanical options there are no clear better or worse choices".)

Given that definition, I'd be willing to forego 100% of balance.

I think that "balance in the rulebooks" and "balance at the table" are often confused. The rulebooks can say whatever they want, as far as I'm concerned. If the rulebooks have magic-users casting wish while the thief gets a 98% chance to climb a rough wall, so be it. What matters is the play at the table. If I have an 18th-level 1e rogue and an 18th-level 1e magic-user sitting down to play, then I need to balance them so that each player has fun. That sort of balance is important, and in my experience, it can be done fairly easily. For example, steal the magic-user's spellbooks, have political uprisings that outlaw magic, have an NPC kidnap the magic-user's daughter, use anti-magic zones and monsters with high magic resistance and/or saves in combat, develop plotlines that require non-magical stealth or a network of thieves or the thieves' cant, have the rogue develop a powerful thieves' guild.

Is it effortless to balance two such unbalanced-by-the-book characters in the same game? No. Is it worth the effort in order to have genuine differences among classes, within the same class at different levels, and to provide variety of play experience and world-building? Yes.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

How much balance would you be willing to forgo before you'd no longer be satisfied with the game?

I played RIFTS and liked it.

Not the system itself, mind you, but the setting. And that includes the wild discrepancies between the relative power of the various OCCs (character classes) and also the various RCCs (character races).

In short- RIFTs has ZERO concern about balance, as is plainly evident from the basic handbook that contains OCCs ranging in power from Glitterboy (a guy who pilots a small Mech) to the Vagabond (pretty much self-explanatory).

 

[pawsplay]

Having played Rifts, DC Heroes, AD&D 2e, and a World of Darkness crossover game, I can say simply that while I'm sure there is an outside limit, I have yet to encounter it. I've witnessed some intra-party competition, but in my experience, players are more preoccuped with bringing their powers to bear against NPCs.

I did play in a DC Heroes game once that became degenerate, and one of the players (my step-brother, actually) decreed that he (Superman) was taking over a South American country. "Whichever one is closest." The other PCs opposed this plan but were outmatched, so they finally hit on the idea of locating a magic arrowhead and shooting him with it. While he lay comatose, they locked him in a lightless coffin and turned him over to the Green Lantern to dispose of. So if you ever wanted to know how Cyborg and the Green Arrow could kill Superman, there you have it.

In general, if you are very character-driven in your games, or if the GM is a real rat bastard, balance is rarely an issue. If you are into more of the power fantasy plus casual get together with your friends thing, it might be worthwhile to pay attention to serious discrepancies.

 

[Orius]

In the 90's I cut my teeth on games like Rifts that do not have balance between characters. My friends and I have fun together and rarely does the game matter.

From everything I've read about RIFTS, I'd guess that's probably the worst system to bring up the concept of balance.

Rifts then is a bad example because the system is pretty bad in many people's opinions. So, I'll go with d6 Star Wars. Jedi in that game could be much more powerful then other characters. But the non combat skills system worked very well and the game still allowed for different characters to shine even though the Jedi were so potentially dominant.

That's probably a better example I suppose. Jedi should be pretty powerful in a Star Wars game, but I don't remember too many comments about Star Wars being so broken that the Jedi always stole the spotlight.

A Good GM can make even a bad system a great experience.

I agree. Even if character options are unbalanced with each other, a good GM can make sure every player has something to do and has fun. Still, there are some systems where some choices are clearly far better than others. I don't think classic D&D really went there though, no matter how powerful the wizard was at high levels, the fighter was the tough guy earlier in the game. Even later on, the fighter would often become some kind of lord or leader, and the thing he did in game were less about direct combat power, and more about how much power and respect he commanded in the campaign. RPing stuff like this though is harder to quantify in terms of balance than combat mechanics though.

Arguments on D&D balance in recent material though don't really talk about the DM. A lot of it is arguing about hypothetical builds and stuff on character optimization boards, or how the balance issues work in electronic D&D games. The latter is probably an important source of revenue for the brand for Hasbro, and I think that's partially why with 3.5 and 4e we've seen more concern about balance: a computer or console game simply can't manage the more subjective balance aspects DMs took care of in the old days. Also, inexperienced DMs have problems maintaining balance, and I think that too is why WotC started focusing on balance, since the game was now being marketed to both experienced and novice players.

 

[Lanefan]

First off, for the baseball analogy: if the guy with the wooden bat is a much better fielder than the guy with the aluminum bat, there's yer balance.

That said:

There's different scales or levels of balance, each of which is its own issue:

Day-to-day balance - this is the bit about whether someone is more or less effective in *this* encounter or situation, right *now*. 4e really seems to have tried to force this level of balance (in hopes that all the higher levels of balance will fall into place) and has at least somewhat succeeded; the question remains as to whether this has made things too homogenous, but that's another issue. For my part, as long as there's some sort of built-in rotation in who is most effective (e.g. situations arise that allow each character to shine) I don't care about this balance type at all.

Adventure-scale balance - this is where you look at how the party is balanced over an adventure or a part of a campaign. Sometimes, some imbalance here is acceptable again provided there's a chance later to even it out a bit - my favourite example is a 1e Illusionist: hopeless in an adventure where the foes are all undead, but if the next adventure's against a colony of dumb Ogres there's yer balance, and the Illusionist will (or should) have a field day! Taken over a series of adventures, however, this is probably the most important balance to watch for.

Campaign-scale balance - do the characters scale up together. Previous editions have had the warrior types excel at low levels and then give way to the blasters at high levels; to some extent I don't mind this, though by high levels the balance is more defined by possessions (who has them vs. who has lost them or who never had them) and seniority (hand in hand with possessions, usually) than ability anyway.

The whole balance problem arises from overdesign, and valiant (but, I think, misguided) attempts to give players more options and choices. The second that "character build" became part of the lexicon is the same second that balance became much more of a noticeable headache; spurred on of course by the internets...

Lan-"off balance yet again"-efan

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

From everything I've read about RIFTS, I'd guess that's probably the worst system to bring up the concept of balance.

No, actually its the perfect system for that discussion- it doesn't even pay lip-service to the concept of balance.

And even for those of us who decry the game's mechanics, it is RARE for us to complain about the balance the game lacks. Combat rules? Conflicting rules in supplements? Stuff that plain "don't make a lick o' sense?"

Sure.

Balance, though? RIFTS proves you don't need it to have a fun game.

 

[Ariosto]

I have not found it such an issue in superhero games using Marvel Super Heroes loosely, either. I think one reason is the genre. Things that might feel out of place in D&D not only fit, but seem almost necessary. What really matters most is that the player gets to play the character he or she has imagined. I don't use any kind of system to regulate character design, just doing it free-form. It helps to have players who get into the comic-book spirit!

Rules-heaviness, I think, has a lot to do with some concepts of balance. Granting that the "character build" aspect of WotC's D&D differs only by degree from mechanical manipulations in old D&D, I think it's a pretty significant degree. New-style players devote way more time and energy to the number-crunching part of the game than anyone I've ever met in an old-style context; it's more like Champions or something!

In AD&D, I've found a spread of three levels usually hardly notable, and that characters of at least fourth level can as a rule of thumb often find it worthwhile to join expeditions with characters of up to twice their level. With more risk comes more reward! It pays, of course, to have some idea of what one is getting into; but that lesson should be well learned by then.

In D&D, I think it's not very helpful to leave magic items out of the equation. At least pre-3E, that brings in factors such as rarity of items and the dependence of low-level MUs on other classes for a good chance of survival. In my experience, mentioning, "I can do that with a spell!" tends to get treated as an argument for someone else who can use it getting Magic Item X.