Pathfinder and 4e....and BALANCE.

[Dice4Hire]

I do not play pathfinder so I'll leave the question of it being balance to others.

In my opinion 4E is balanced, overall better than any previous interation of D&D. I could discuss a lot of things, but will start with spells

To me the spells of the Vancian system are much like magic cards. Some spells/cards are just terrible no matter how you look at them. Many are decently balanced, have some flavor and are overall decent, but not many people use them because there are better spells out there. And some are great-awesome, and those are what get used. In 3.0 the BEST spell (IMO) to cast in the first round of combat was haste. If the spellcaster did not cast that in the first round, then the rest of the party would likely feed him/her to whatever they were fighting.

In 4E, there are powers that are better than others. Some powers have probably never been chosen in the history of the DDI character builder, but the difference between the best and worst choice of a given power level is not that great. In fact I would say that even a character with random power assortment ( keeping the randomness to all Str or Wis for a cleric for example) would be viable, maybe not great, but viable.

But in 3.5? Not hardly. Too many sub-par or useless choices.

 

[Khairn]

Balance is important because people aren't perfect, and RPG players are rare enough to be valuable, even if they aren't perfect. In a game situation where everyone is perfect(and it does happen), balance can be set aside. When just one of those players decides to use the system to be more powerful, it affects everyone else. If somebody optimizes, balance becomes important.

So balance is important to protect us from ourselves? Sorry, but I just dont buy that argument. I can understand where you're coming from, but I don't think that gamers (both players and GM's) are so fragile that a min/max munchkin will destroy their game.

I do agree that 4E is more "combat balanced" than Pathfinder, as maintaining that laser sharp focus on combat was a key design goal by WotC. So if combat balance is the critical feature that you are looking for in a system, then 4E would probably be a good game for you.

Pathfinder is a solid system that has cleaned up a number of the issues that many gamers had with 3.5, and has endeavored to balance out the classes and combat while still maintaining the high degree of options and flexibility that was an integral part of the game.

But like others have already said, I question both the definition of "balance" for an RPG, and the necessity of "combat balance" as the pivotal element in the game. Irregardless of the system, the more expansion you publish, the more you will face option or power creep. Its true for both 3.5 and 4E. I guess in the end its up to the GM and players to make a call on what options they want in their games and what they don't.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

For me, personally, Pathfinder is "balanced enough," where as 4e is "too balanced" or "overly balanced."

That said, 4e isn't perfectly balanced either. Some classes are still simply better then others. Or worse then others.

 

[pawsplay]

Fundamentally, spellcasters increase in power exponentially as they gain levels and nonspellcasters increase in power linearly in 3.5E, and Pathfinder didn't really do anything to change that.

That's a useful metaphor, and yet it's hyperbolic. It's not literally true. Most damaging spells, for instance, progress at 1d6 per level, which is linear, with a few boosts at 7th through 9th level in certain circumstances. Spell DCs actually lose ground against monster saves for the most part (although they gain ground versus weak DCs in many cases). Meanwhile, fighters not only do more damage, but get more attacks and have more options compared to low level.

Casters gain a wider variety of special utility, quality-of-life powers, but that is a matter of role, not power, strictly speaking.

 

[Votan]

There is a bit of truth to this, though its more of a two-tiered effect than imbalance. Specifically, from a balance standpoint, classes that don't have their accompanying power book(Martial Power, Arcane Power, ect.) are at a disadvantage over those that do. Martial/Arcane/Divine/Primal power all boosted the power of the classes contained within to a significant degree by giving them a better choice of powers. The new classes in PHB3 will be at a disadvantage until they get the same treatment. On the other hand, I don't think the release of Martial Power 2 has altered the balance landscape significantly. Its added some things that didn't exist before, like ranged options for Rogue and Warlord and melee/ranged attacks for Rangers that use Str(ranged)/Dex(melee), but it hasn't changed the balance landscape to the degree the first wave of X Power books did. Once powers gain a critical mass, option creep derived from them slows down.

The best way for new powers to be added, in my opinion, is to add diversity to classes. However, this can go wrong (although I am not claiming that it has in 4E, I'm not experienced enough with 4E to be sure).

My favorite 3E example was Druid spells -- it was often noted that Druid spells seemed weak for their level. So many supplements tried to introduce flavorful Druid spells that were equal to spells of the other full caster classes. But, in my opinion, one of the balance points of the Druid was many spells (see Heal, Baleful Polymorph) were at higher levels to balance out cool features like wild-shape.

But both editions do really well in balance for core material that can be extensively play-tested together. In this respect, Pathfinder is very well balanced due to extensive play-testing. The point of vulnerability, in my opinion, is making sure that mixing and matching options from different supplements does not create excessively powerful options.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

That's a useful metaphor, and yet it's hyperbolic. It's not literally true. Most damaging spells, for instance, progress at 1d6 per level, which is linear, with a few boosts at 7th through 9th level in certain circumstances. Spell DCs actually lose ground against monster saves for the most part (although they gain ground versus weak DCs in many cases). Meanwhile, fighters not only do more damage, but get more attacks and have more options compared to low level.

Casters gain a wider variety of special utility, quality-of-life powers, but that is a matter of role, not power, strictly speaking.

Fighters get more attacks, but wizards get more spells. And the Fighter iterative attacks are weaker, while the wizard gets better spells. Saving Throw DCs and damage caps can result to spells becoming comparatively weaker to higher level spells, but I dare say not to the same extent. Especially once you add save or die and "game changer" spells - Fly will always remain useful, since most of the time your enemy can't fly, and if he can, you really want to fly, too, for example.

One of the "problems" in general though is that there are quite a few situation where a Fighter might have an advantage over the Wizard, and quite a few where he is really weak. I am not sure what the current "state of the art" for Wands/Staffs of Cure Light Wounds is with Pathfinder, but at least in 3E, healing was very cheap to come by. So a Fighter could run "cheaply" through a lot of combats, as long as he managed to stay alive, but a Wizard either would be out of spells at some time - or he had simply to not cast at all. If there is only one or two fights per day, a Wizard can cast most of his spells fast and can turn the tide of a battle very quickly - including deciding it after his first action.

In a way, there is a "balance" to be found here - if you manage to change how many encounters per day you have. But it is a fragile balance.

A similar fragile balance you can see in regards to survibability or hit points. Fighters have tons of them, Wizards don't (usually). This means you "need" Fighters to hold off your enemies, otherwise a lucky hit might kill your Wizard before he has even a chance to cast one of his "game changer" spells. A prepared Wizard had a lot less to worry, though. So the balance achieved is - you need a Fighter, otherwise your Wizard might be dead before he can do anything. But it is fragile, because it only works if you really design your Fighter to be the Wizard's meat shield and don't try to play the lightly armored, fast moving archer. And if there is a Wizard to be defended.

A similar fragile balance can be seen with Rogues (before Pathfinder, at least) - Sneak Attack is a big damage boost. To compensate, the Rogue is less well armored and has less hit points, and there are opponents against whom he can't use his power. So he is probably balanced against the melee fighter, for example - he deals more damage, but has to retreat more often and be generally more careful. But once he meets undeads or constructs, he is out of luck. Now he's only a lightly armored fragile combatant.
(This is probably an example where Pathfinder improved the balance, IIRC sneak attack now works against most creatures)

---

Aside from protecting us from bad players, game balance can also achieve other positive effects.
For example, if classes have a balanced amount of limited resources regardless of class, it means that pacing of an adventure affects them all equally, too. As I mentioned in the fighter/wizard example - a lot of fights per day tend to benefit the Fighter (unless there is no healing magic available, in that case the fighter will typically be worse off). If this is how you balance the game, it means everyone has to ensure a "balanced" number of encounters per time unit used to replenish resources. (Typically, per Day). If everyone uses the same type of resource management, it means everyone is equally benefitted (or screwed) by the number of encounters per time unit.

This in turn can be important for the fun of the game. If you have to hold back consistently as a wizard, you won't really feel like playing an interesting or useful character. Sure, you might make smart comments and roleplay greatly, but you could have done this with a Fighter, Bard or Rogue, too. Or an NPC Expert.
If there is only a single big fight each day and it's the Wizard "solving" it, you won't get much use out of your fighter abilities - even if you can make smart comments and roleplay greatly, a lot of the mechanical contents on your character sheet are irrelevant and you could have played another class, too.

I know that some people like to point out that it doesn't always have to be about you and that it is a social experience, so you can cheer for your team mates in such situations. That is all true. But it is cool if one cheer about each other. Also - maybe you are in the spotlight because you are playing this energizer bunny Fighter or the wizard with the right spells for this job. But maybe you notice that some of your friends don't get to have these fun moments very often.
Or maybe you are the DM, and you see that your current campaign/adventure benefits one player's character more than the others, and you worry about how to fix it for that player, and wonder if he was a little disappointed.

The latter guy is me. I've experienced this quite a few times. Seeing a player at the table which seems to play his character more or less on "auto-pilot" because he doesn't have a big chance to affect the outcome anyway. He is still funny, witty, he still has smart ideas, he gives good advice and all that. But still, when it is his turn, not much is going on. I don't like that as a DM. I have a great responsibility - I have to satisfy the entire group (including me), and I see that someone could have a better experience then he does. I should do something about it. Especially in my role as dungeon master or game master or referee, my fun is the greatest when I see that everyone is happy. I know I did my job well, that my ideas, my story, my encounters, my design did appeal to t he group and entertains them. If I see someone that is less entertained than he could be, I want to do better.

And game balance can help here. Because it means everyone can contribute most of the time, even if I run a plot with lots of undeads or long travel times and few combats, or a campaign set in a war zone with dozens of combats per day, even when I give out less treasure than usual or more, or a campaign involving lots of roleplaying and/or skill use. It means one less thing I can screw up.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I played 3.x since release of the first print of the PHB. And I come from 2nd edition, where there is virtulally no balance...

... no balance between classes? Yes there was: the exponential power of spellcasters was held in check by: - monsters with 90% magic immunity, fighters having low saves, needing a week to prepare all their spells, not beeing able to get a single spell out with an enemy mage firing magic missiles at you and a fighter in your face, and low low hp, beeing able to be taken out in a round.

In 3.x thoses balance factors were taken out only to a certain extend, and fighters were also improved... and grappling was a good response to spellcasters. (even when not beeing trained in it)

So there was a certain balance in 3.x, which however could be gone around by powergaming. And in my 8 years of DMing, i had only one player who was concerned about balance in this system... our most able powergamer.

So my approach was always: who cares about balance when it is still fun for everybody? But you need to say no sometimes to make sure it is fun for all.

In 4e you can say yes more easily without beeing concerned about balance too much. Only dragon articles have to be watched carefully because there are options that are too good.

 

[haakon1]

When just one of those players decides to use the system to be more powerful, it affects everyone else. If somebody optimizes, balance becomes important.

Only if the other players are jealously looking for who has the most powerful character and upset if it's not them. That's not a thought that ever crosses my mind at the gaming table, so I'm not sure how common it really is.

I've heard players CONGRATULATE someone who seems to be doing really well, and complain about themselves when they seem to be getting all the bad luck, but that's not a balance thing, I don't think.

 

[haakon1]

For me, personally, Pathfinder is "balanced enough," where as 4e is "too balanced" or "overly balanced."

That's my impression too.

If you want balance as your #1 priority, I think 4e is the best choice.

But for me, 3.5 is just more fun.

(Hey, let's make this a thread where we discuss edition differences without bashing! What a challenge!)

 

[The Greene Knight]

Rules' balance is just one of the elements that constitute practical, effective balance at the game table.
In the end, it is the DM and players who ultimately make or break balance during the game.