What do you do without balance?

[Fanaelialae]

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).

I simply said "From what I've seen...". I've never seen the Tempest build you claim, that doesn't rely on opportunity attacks to bring up it's average damage. Even so, assuming for the moment that it is true, you only addressed half the definition of what a Striker is. Where is the Tempest Fighter's added Striker mobility coming from? Paladins get some nice healing, but that doesn't make them leaders on par with a Cleric.

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!).

Are you unwilling to allow for the FACT that the designers are human, imperfect, and therefore entirely capable of making mistakes? A system as complex as D&D is going to have mistakes, and sometimes glaring ones (at least, it has in every edition I've ever owned).

That the Wizard design was slightly "under-controllered" was not relevant before a few days ago, because the Wizard was the only controller in the game. There was no one to steal the spotlight from him!

I've seen some people say that the rogue is better, some the ranger, and some the warlock. Overall I would say that that suggests they're pretty on par with each other. People will have their preferences and say "I saw X class do this" but I would say that even if one is better than the others, they're pretty darn close.

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 said that the reliance on Spotlight Balance had been built in to the system to a greater degree than had been done before. I even pointed out that it is not "out of the DM's hands" entirely, merely that the parts which are reliant upon the DM are reduced. I even gave examples (that the Wizard could no longer buff himself to become a better Defender than the Fighter).

No offense, but have you been reading what I've been writing, or just skimming a few of the words and imagining the rest? If you're going to nit-pick sentences instead of considering the ideas as a whole, while ignoring anything that you might consider inconvenient, there really isn't much point to this conversation and I won't bother.

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...

If you're willing to completely ignore the fact that the Rogue gets class powers that forever will keep him a step ahead of the Ranger. The Rogue, therefore, only has to keep pace with the Ranger (minus one feat that the Rogue gets for free). He can be a feat behind and still be a step ahead forever.

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

Thanks. Just as when I add paprika to my gulyas, I find adding colorful words to posts helps to "spice things up".

I'm not clear as to what is the "it" that you don't you know "if it was necessarily tyranny" though? I was speaking from a theoretical place wherein I imagined a universe where the designers had bowed utterly and completely to Concept Balance (and came to the conclusion that it was a very different game than our version of 4E).

Note that I am not trying to assert that there is no Concept Balance in 4E. I've already stated that the amount of Concept Balance has greatly increased. It is not, however, the only Balance to be seen within the game.

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.

No, the Rogue and the Ranger approach the role of Striker from two different angles. You can't say that the Ranger blows the Rogue out of the water without comparing and contrasting their powers in addition to their features (of which you only compared a lesser subset to begin with).

The Rogue can become good at woodlore at the same opportunity cost that is required for the Ranger to become a thief; a feat (to acquire the Nature skill). And it doesn't make the Ranger any less special.

Being able to become skilled at something outside of your stereotypical role is character creation flexibility. Look at 2nd ed. A Fighter who wanted to learn how to sneak had to dual/multi-class into Thief. In 3.x, spending his 2 skill points cross-class in Hide and Move Silently meant that he'd be poor at sneaking and terrible at every other skill. In 4E, all he does is spend a feat to learn Stealth. If that isn't increased flexibility, I don't know what is.

 

[Calico_Jack73]

In reference to the original post (I don't have time to read all the replies).

Personally I don't worry about balance at all. IMHO enjoyment of the game doesn't depend on my PC being equal in combat effectiveness (what most people refer to as balance) to another PC. I don't get jealous if another PC is more likely to hit or do more damage. For me the important thing is that I'm playing the character that I want and I'm having fun doing it. Rifts is a good example of a game where this most often becomes a factor. If you want to play a vagabond who knows the streets of Chi-Town like the back of his hand then do it... just don't get upset when you have nowhere near the combat effectiveness of the Glitter Boy player. Play what you want to play... don't worry about what the other players are playing.

I believe it is up to the GM to insert "Times to Shine" for each player. If the GM is only throwing in combat encounters then the vagabond player from the example above is going to get bored and the game will become "un-fun" for them. Now if the GM puts a social encounter where the vagabond has to get in touch with a fence about purchasing some illegal weapons or something then it will be his "Time to Shine". He'll get to use his Intelligence and Streetwise skills to make a difference in storyline... that can be just as if not more satisfying than having more combat effectiveness.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I think it was Irda Ranger who had a proposed solution to flatten the power curve in 4E by removing the +1/2 level bonus from players (for attacks, defenses, etc) as well as the +hit derived from magic weapons/implements, and removing the +level bonus monsters get (to the same).

Thanks for this.

Ummm......

Sure fairness to the players I'm right there with you. But you indicated that if you play better then someone else you should be higher level. Ok cool, I follow along with that, but balance between classes has nothing to do with giving someone inexperienced or with less ability a "handicap."

No, it does not. Balance between classes is a seperate issue from fairness. So long as a game is fair, IMHO, it does not have to be balanced.

If class balance "just ensures all players (despite their position) use the same equipment" that is equivilent to ensuring that your entire baseball team uses the aluminum bat....even the outfield.

If you give one position a metal bat, he has a better opportunity to "play better" then someone else of equal skill level in a different position that for some reason only gets a wooden bat.

Excepting, as stated repeatedly, that the DM isn't giving one position a metal bat. The individual player decides which bat to use, based upon all the bats that are available.

Your analogy isn't apt: no one is forced to use any given bat.

And it has nothing at all to do with sandbox or not sandbox in my opinion.

If Class A survives 25% of all adventures, and Class B survives 90% of all adventures, and there is no XP-topping-up going on, the player who prefers Class A will perforce be of lower level than the player who prefers Class B, so that "class balance" cannot be a simple matter of "all classes equal at Level Y". An ongoing campaign (sandbox vs. AP) allows for a greater variety of forms by which balance may be achieved.


RC

 

[Crothian]

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

It is a good example of a game that can work without balance.

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.

One battle we had had the group go up against a half dozen evil force users with light sabers. The Jedi in the group took on five of them. They of course get separated from the rest of us, my mechanic, a soldier pilot, and another PC that I can't recall what he was. The three of us battled one of these things and it was the toughest battle (and maybe the coolest) I've ever won in a RPG. Our Jedi took out 5 of those things with little problems. I know I'm not the only player who saw this type of thing in d6 Star Wars.

 

[Panzeh]

Thanks for this.



No, it does not. Balance between classes is a seperate issue from fairness. So long as a game is fair, IMHO, it does not have to be balanced.

If class balance "just ensures all players (despite their position) use the same equipment" that is equivilent to ensuring that your entire baseball team uses the aluminum bat....even the outfield.



Excepting, as stated repeatedly, that the DM isn't giving one position a metal bat. The individual player decides which bat to use, based upon all the bats that are available.

Your analogy isn't apt: no one is forced to use any given bat.



If Class A survives 25% of all adventures, and Class B survives 90% of all adventures, and there is no XP-topping-up going on, the player who prefers Class A will perforce be of lower level than the player who prefers Class B, so that "class balance" cannot be a simple matter of "all classes equal at Level Y". An ongoing campaign (sandbox vs. AP) allows for a greater variety of forms by which balance may be achieved.


RC

I find that the idea that DMs are meant to be the ultimate balancing factor in RPGs to be a really severe cop-out; the sort of DM fiat required that is often leveled as a criticism of 4e doesn't even come close to this. If the only balancing factor for something is the DM, why even bother making things remotely balanced, you can be just like rifts.

Now, i won't completely decry the idea that people should simply have varying levels of competence in the world, but design should incorporate this, ala Ars Magica, where they pretty much straight up make magic users better than people without, but it's assumed all the PCs are magic users, so it's fine.

 

[Imaro]

This will most likely be my last response to your posts as it's at best tangential to the topic and I really don't want to get into edition war territory...

I simply said "From what I've seen...". I've never seen the Tempest build you claim, that doesn't rely on opportunity attacks to bring up it's average damage. Even so, assuming for the moment that it is true, you only addressed half the definition of what a Striker is. Where is the Tempest Fighter's added Striker mobility coming from? Paladins get some nice healing, but that doesn't make them leaders on par with a Cleric.

Let me only say this, since a Fighter can lock a particular target down... why would it be necessary for him to be able to chase it down? And since the fighter is built to be durable... why does he have to avoid attacks. In the end his role helps cancel out the mobility need of a true striker, so that if he produces as much damage as a striker he can cover the Strikers role and his own easily, and is better at it than a striker who does less damage than him. You don't have to do everything a class or role can do to overshadow it. A wizard in earlier editions couldn't wear plate mail or wield a Greatsword yet many claim he could overshadow the fighter.

Are you unwilling to allow for the FACT that the designers are human, imperfect, and therefore entirely capable of making mistakes? A system as complex as D&D is going to have mistakes, and sometimes glaring ones (at least, it has in every edition I've ever owned).

That the Wizard design was slightly "under-controllered" was not relevant before a few days ago, because the Wizard was the only controller in the game. There was no one to steal the spotlight from him!

Exactly my point and with a PHB every year this is bound to happen with more than just the Wizard. While it could be argued this is because the designers are human, I think it's also or even moreso the fact that the type of balance WotC have chosen to go for with 4e gets harder and harder to maintain as more elements are added to the game.

As far as other editions, I think the fact that the marketing of 4e stressed how balanced it is and how much this will improve your game as opposed to the earlier "unbalanced" editions have made it so that this is one of the main selling points of 4e and if it's not maintained then it decreases one of the main draws of the game for many.

I've seen some people say that the rogue is better, some the ranger, and some the warlock. Overall I would say that that suggests they're pretty on par with each other. People will have their preferences and say "I saw X class do this" but I would say that even if one is better than the others, they're pretty darn close.

Note: I've never seen the Warlock argued as the best striker and have only seen him labeled as mediocre to sub-par at best (perhaps this will be corrected in Arcane Power along with the Wizard).

Pretty close is subjective and I have actually listed why the Ranger is an all-around better Striker than Warlock or Rogue. He has a higher average damage output... his Hunters Quarry is not subject to attaining a condition... He is proficient in more weapons & armor, than the Rogue and more weapons are applicable to his actual powers as opposed to the Rogue.

I said that the reliance on Spotlight Balance had been built in to the system to a greater degree than had been done before. I even pointed out that it is not "out of the DM's hands" entirely, merely that the parts which are reliant upon the DM are reduced. I even gave examples (that the Wizard could no longer buff himself to become a better Defender than the Fighter).

No offense, but have you been reading what I've been writing, or just skimming a few of the words and imagining the rest? If you're going to nit-pick sentences instead of considering the ideas as a whole, while ignoring anything that you might consider inconvenient, there really isn't much point to this conversation and I won't bother.

No offense but your actual argument here is hard to follow. Spotlight Balance in combat is hindered by the simple fact that teamwork is so important in combat. Who gets to stand out and shine on their own when their decisions need to be based on how best to help the others in their group? Really your arguing that Spotlight balance is present and easier to maintain in D&D 4e (I think)... but Spotlight balance is where one character gets to showcase his abilities in return for allowing others in different situations to do the same during other times. Combat is about teamwork so how do these two ideas coincide?

If you're willing to completely ignore the fact that the Rogue gets class powers that forever will keep him a step ahead of the Ranger. The Rogue, therefore, only has to keep pace with the Ranger (minus one feat that the Rogue gets for free). He can be a feat behind and still be a step ahead forever.

So in specialized conditions and if he picks the right power (using thievery in combat) the Rogue is slightly faster than the Ranger, but overall the Ranger can do what the Rogue can (by spending one feat) and do all the things he can and use more weapons with his powers and wear better armor and do more damage on average, etc.

Thanks. Just as when I add paprika to my gulyas, I find adding colorful words to posts helps to "spice things up".

I'm not clear as to what is the "it" that you don't you know "if it was necessarily tyranny" though? I was speaking from a theoretical place wherein I imagined a universe where the designers had bowed utterly and completely to Concept Balance (and came to the conclusion that it was a very different game than our version of 4E).

Note that I am not trying to assert that there is no Concept Balance in 4E. I've already stated that the amount of Concept Balance has greatly increased. It is not, however, the only Balance to be seen within the game.

I don't believe in absolutes, but we are talking majority here and the game... for all intents and purposes tries to balance itself around Concept Balance and not Spotlight or Naturalistic Balance. All I'm saying in the end is that I don't think games that become as subsystem and splat heavy as D&D always eventually becomes can effectively maintain balance based on concept. However there is no way to tell until we're looking back and naming the "unbalanced" things in the game 4 or 5 years from now.



No, the Rogue and the Ranger approach the role of Striker from two different angles. You can't say that the Ranger blows the Rogue out of the water without comparing and contrasting their powers in addition to their features (of which you only compared a lesser subset to begin with).

The Rogue can become good at woodlore at the same opportunity cost that is required for the Ranger to become a thief; a feat (to acquire the Nature skill). And it doesn't make the Ranger any less special.

Being able to become skilled at something outside of your stereotypical role is character creation flexibility. Look at 2nd ed. A Fighter who wanted to learn how to sneak had to dual/multi-class into Thief. In 3.x, spending his 2 skill points cross-class in Hide and Move Silently meant that he'd be poor at sneaking and terrible at every other skill. In 4E, all he does is spend a feat to learn Stealth. If that isn't increased flexibility, I don't know what is.[/quote]

 

[Raven Crowking]

I find that the idea that DMs are meant to be the ultimate balancing factor in RPGs to be a really severe cop-out

You are, perhaps, conflating someone else's position with my own?

My opinion, stated many times in many threads, is that the DM should not be providing the ultimate balancing factor. At least not in D&D. The players should be performing this function.

Obviously, this doesn't work in an AP like it does in a sandbox, because in an AP the players aren't supposed to be determining what they are big enough to take on.


RC

 

[Ariosto]

Panzeh, I don't see where you get "that DMs are meant to be the ultimate balancing factor" from Raven Crowking's post you quoted.

The assertion I see is that the game is set up so that, on average, one's Magic User character is going to be no more (indeed, probably less) powerful than a Fighting Man that took as long to develop -- including rolling up new characters along the way.

One is free to choose whichever class one prefers. One is moreover free to choose what exploits one's character undertakes.

In other words, the players are the ultimate balancing factors!

 

[Doug McCrae]

There are also many of us who like "balance over time." Meaning, it is alright for a fighter to be more powerful than a wizard at level one and a wizard to be more powerful at level twenty, etc.

The problem with this is it means D&D can only be played as a campaign from level 1 to X (X being the point at which the wizard has been overpowered for as long as the fighter was). Any deviation and the game breaks. That makes it one helluva limited game.

 

[Voadam]

This can be true so long as PC level isn't directly linked to the amount of risk undertaken, where a PC of level X is expected to be able to meet a minimum skill level Y at that level in order to succeed.

If a game assumes competent use of the assets available, and success or failure depend upon that competent use, then character level is very much a meritocracy....and the DM does no favours to Joe when he lets him start at 10th level because the other PCs are 10th level. Far better to start Joe at 1st level in a seperate game area, and let Joe learn the system (i.e., earn merit) than to simply allow him to get his sequential 10th level PCs killed (and possibly his companions as well).

And, to be quite honest, character power is always a meritocracy, simply because given the exact same characters, the better player is going to be able to better use that character's abilities to meet his goals.

Unless, of course, the DM actively punishes merit.


RC

If a game assumes competent use of assets for success then it doesn't matter what level Joe plays if he is not competent at using assets. He will just die off his first couple of characters at 1st level instead of 10th if you start him there.

It is only if you assume that higher level games require more competent use of assets than low levels that it makes a difference.

A high level 1e fighter has a lot more hp than a low level one and can survive poor choices better than a low level fighter can.

The bigger point though is that the game is designed for a group to adventure together.

Say I'm an experienced player with a 10th level character and I want my friend Joe who has never played before to join our experienced D&D group full of other 10th level characters.

Joe could create a first level character and do separate games with the DM until he is competent enough to join our group.

Joe could create a first level character and join our group as is.

Joe could create a first level character and we could all scrap our existing game to make first level characters with him.

Joe could create a first level character and we could all scrap our existing game and make 2nd or 3rd level characters with him (we are better, more experienced players so the argument is we in fairness deserve higher level characters as a meritocratic reward)

Joe could make a 10th level character and join us.

Joe could make a 15th level character as a handicap for his inexperience and join us.


I don't think the ideal solution is to send Joe off alone until he is as experienced as us. The goal is to have Joe join our game.

Having Joe play a 1st level character alongside my 10th level one creates its own problems, either he can't handle mechanically what we are doing and risks dying at every turn, or everyone but Joe is taking on things way below our level and outshining him spectacularly constantly.

Doing a campaign restart for the intro of a new player is not appealing to me. I like continuing ongoing campaigns and character continuation.

Doing a restart with us flat out more powerful than him just seems to be a way to say to Joe explicitly that he is not equal to us in our judgment. This is a DM/group judgment and not dictated by the nature of default starting power and advancement in the game.

If Joe comes in at 10th it is a little more mechanically complex than 1st level but he can join our game and decently contribute while learning the game.

If Joe gets a huge handicap to overpower his character then that throws in all the problems of mechanically unbalanced dynamics and judgments in the group.

As a communal group activity with the goal of enjoying adventures, fairness to me seems to be giving everyone in the group the opportunity to participate meaningfully in the immediate game. Fairness therefore does not seem to me to consist in granting the mechanical power to participate more meaningfully in the group's activities as a reward based on prior activities.