Legends and Lore: Balance

[FireLance]

And, while some groups may have a high tollerance for imbalance, how many have a low tollerance for balance? So you deliver some groups more balance than they need - it won't hurt them. You deliver less balance than they need, they'll be cursing your game. Spread some consumer surplus around.

Of course, those who don't like balance don't put it exactly that way. They say stuff like, "Every class plays the same," or, "Everyone's a spellcaster."

 

[Riastlin]

[MENTION=17343]Tony_V[/MENTION]argas: I get what you are saying about the options in the poll. Sure, any response but the first one can be spun to say that something is more important than balance. Additionally, the poll doesn't give us the option to say what it. The problem is though that in order to then properly construct a poll by those standards, you need lots of possible answer choices. "Balance is very important, but fun is most important", "Balance is very important but options are most important", etc. Even then, you might still find some holes in the answer options. Making matters worse is the fact that with so many answer choices, you will almost assuredly get rather meaningless results. The front runner answer might be one with 10% of responses for instance. I just personally think you are reading far more into this than is really there. Obviously I could be wrong. This could all be part of an evil plan by Mearls to completely redesign the D&D brand and turn it into his personal vision of how the game should be, community and profits be damned. Or, it could be just what he says it is, a series of very informal polls that he knows are far from scientific and that are designed just to give him some information which may or may not be useful.

As to the balance creep, I confess that I really don't have much experience with the E-classes. What are the balance issues with the new classes? I'm not trying to be flippant or sarcastic here, I'm simply in the dark. So far my only experience with them are a player in one group playing a mage (and we are only level 4), and a player in a group I DM for running a Sentinel. So far, the mage actually seems pretty weak though this could obviously be largely due to build choice. I also realize that I have nowhere near enough exposure to the mage class to be able to make any meaningful observation or comparison, so I'm not trying to say that it is indeed weak, etc.

As for the sentinel, he certainly has a lot of healing at his disposal. At a quick glance (that player is also new to the group) he seems to be more or less on par with the cleric in terms of healing ability but does sacrifice a lot of surges to do so. The bear pet's defense bonus also seems pretty strong but it has not kept me from putting the party on the verge of a player death either with level +1 encounters. At the end of 4 encounters frex the sentinel and the ranger were both out of surges with the ranger sitting at about 1/4 hit points.

As aside, this is a very small sample size and not enough to make any meaningful observation or comparison so I am genuinely interested in hearing what the problems are with the E-classes since I don't have the Heroes Of books, etc. I know that the E-classes are better suited for mods/campaigns that string a lot of encounters together due to their lack of encounter/daily powers but other than that I am simply ignorant.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Balance is good and fine, and even though not everyone is a spellcaster, and more experienced players, even those new to DnD like choices... classes like the slayer has its place.
And from what we can say, the developers did a good job at balancing it... at least it seems like that in actual play.

So when in the beginning, everyone thought, every class is the same and this is boring, now everyone believes that classes that follow different structures are imbalanced as hell. Haven´t experience anything like that until now...

Balance in a way is a principle that should be kept in mind... but for a RPG played by humans, it is not the most important principle... the most importan principle is fun.

And since not everything is core anymore, saying no to heroes of shadow races and classes is ok too... i am looking forward to that book and all imbalances... (imbalances in a sense of advantages and disadvantages)

 

[Kinneus]

I can see arguments for reducing or eliminating balance... but only if you put big flashing warning signs up around the weaker options saying: "WARNING: This particular race/class/combo is meant to be challenging and difficult to play, blah blah blah."

Nothing sucks worse than being a new player, all bright-eyed and bushy-tailed, walking into a new game. You see your favorite option, like a vampire or a necromancer or a seeker, and pick it because it sounds cool and fun to play. But then you get into the game and see it's implemented to be weaker-on-average than every other race/class combo. The knowledge that this was a "design choice" on the part of the developers to make your favorite archetype "more flavorful" will likely be cold comfort indeed. Yes, yes, I know that there are people out there who aren't "playing to win," but if that's the case, then what's the harm in being transparent about it? What's the harm in being up-front in saying "Slayers are weaker than Fighters in these following areas, but get higher damage" or whatnot. Just because you want to play a fighter doesn't mean you're necessarily content to play a weak, frail fighter constantly overshadowed by Gandalf McLightningballs.

*Disclaimer: All examples are just here to illustrate my point. Not saying that wizards are better than fighters (or even that fighters are better than slayers) or that seekers, necromancers or vampires are always 100% sucky.

 

[MrMyth]

It would be a cool option to have in the game, but I fear it would be one of those situations where, in your typical game group, it would be relegated to the "anyone but me" status that clerics had in previous editions.

If you could figure out a way to inject "action" into the multi-round build-up to the wizard's spell (with meaningful round-to-round choices and perhaps some rolling), it could be a worthwhile option. You'd have to make it as exciting round-to-round as playing a "normal" class.

I'd love to see more 'combo' mechanics. The Wizard casts a few lesser spells in sequence, which opens up a more powerful spell. Overall balance is preserved, he still has regular activity in the game, but gets to feel distinct in his own way.

Actually, I'd like to see stuff along this lines in general, if only as a way to discourage having combats defined by instant-novas right at the start of the encounter. An approach like this might give a role to dailies that makes them more evenly spread out over encounters, rather than unleashed overwhelmingly all at once.

Anyway, I think that Mearl's point is a good one about balance (making sure everyone can shine), but not the only point. I think it is important that everyone has a chance to shine, but also then everyone can regularly contribute.

It's cool if the barbarian gets to be super-stabby mcAwesome in combat while the bard takes a back seat. But I don't want that back seat to consist of trying to roll 20s to hit the enemy, or leaving his PC to play the harp while the player walks off to make a sandwich. I want that bard to be able to contribute meaningfully, even if the barbarian contributes more.

The barbarian might hit on a 5+ while the bard hits on a 13+, and the barbarian might do twice as much damage - but at least they both are able to take genuine part in the battle.

What I don't want are combats where the enemy is so tough that only the barbarian (or wizard, or whomever) can do anything against them. Or scenes where the bard needs to roleplay for 20 minutes while the rest of the group sits and watches. Everyone should be able to take part and feel capable, even if some characters get to be the best. And which is which can shift from scene to scene.

 

[triqui]

Really?

I only recall complaints that they didn't feel much like controllers. That's what the designers admitted and were attempting to fix by introducing new powers focusing on the controlling aspects. I definitely disagree that wizards are underpowered. E.g. they have many of the most powerful dailys in the game.

I remember several threads about it, including a lot of "any class multiclass wizard is better than a wizard" and "actually warlocks controll better than wizards" . A ton of them. In the begining of 4e, controllers where seen as minion clearer, and "you only need one or two spells for that" was a typical rant. It might be a wrong view, but it was a typical one. The appereance of other controllers which bassically had bettr versions of wizards at wils -compare scorching burst to any of their clones- made things even worse.

Several of wizard's best dailies and encounter powers are from AP, like visions of avarice or grasping shadows or the illussion at-wills.

 

[triqui]

I'd love to see more 'combo' mechanics. The Wizard casts a few lesser spells in sequence, which opens up a more powerful spell. Overall balance is preserved, he still has regular activity in the game, but gets to feel distinct

Now you mention it, "combo" scream "martial power source" for me

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

Now you mention it, "combo" scream "martial power source" for me

This was my first thought. That it screams "video game" was my second (I'm not implying a judgement to that - I like video games).

 

[Riastlin]

I remember several threads about it, including a lot of "any class multiclass wizard is better than a wizard" and "actually warlocks controll better than wizards" . A ton of them. In the begining of 4e, controllers where seen as minion clearer, and "you only need one or two spells for that" was a typical rant. It might be a wrong view, but it was a typical one. The appereance of other controllers which bassically had bettr versions of wizards at wils -compare scorching burst to any of their clones- made things even worse.

Several of wizard's best dailies and encounter powers are from AP, like visions of avarice or grasping shadows or the illussion at-wills.

I can definitely vouch for this. I don't know about EnWorld, but certainly on the WotC boards there was a definite sentiment among many that wizards were weak. Some of this was perhaps a "sticker shock" effect from fans of wizards wishing the wizard were a striker instead, but there was also a feeling that it was just plain weak.

Many thought not only Warlocks, but also clerics were better controllers. The wizard at-wills really were fairly substandard back then with the only real exception being Thunderwave (and even that was dicey much of the time). Wizards almost invariably would target everything in the area of effect too which made them that much more difficult to play. Nobody likes being critted by their teammate for instance. Finally, I think it also just took some time for a lot of people to realize just how effective a controller could be in terms of deciding the battle.

I know that when 4e came out in particular, it was widely viewed that if you had to sacrifice one role in the party, then controller was the way to go (and oh by the way, wizards were the only controller). Now, all this being said, I actually do think wizards were fine when they were first released. The problem came in PHB 2 when controllers started to be a bit better defined. Wizard dailies were still top notch -- and people had started to realize just how effective they could be with things other than just sleep. The at-wills though were still substandard (particularly compared to other controllers). Keep in mind that the vast majority of play is in heroic tier (where at-wills are even more important) and you start to see where the complaints came from.

I recall when Winged Horde was first released all the outcry. The complaints were not so much that WH was overpowered, but rather that it made a completely stupid decision to pick scorching burst unless you just really wanted a fire-themed wizard. Consider: WH dealt a better damage type, dealt the same amount of damage (at first release), targetted enemies only AND had a really nice effect attached to it.

Now as I said, all in all I think wizards were fine at release, but much of their balance as it turns out came from their dailies.

Anyhoo, back on topic. I think Mr. Myth has the right idea. Its fine if in certain encounters one character shines above another. Clerics are great against undead for instance. But there in general should be a feeling of equal importance among the group. Looking at the Bard/Barbarian example, sure the barbarian does far more damage than the bard. The thing is though the bard a) keeps the barbarian alive and b) makes it easier for the barbarian to deal his crazy damage. In many respects, a lot of the time much of the damage dealt by the barbarian can really be attributed to the bard. This is where I think the balance in 4ed really came out good.

Now as I said, I've had plenty of fun throughout every edition of D&D that I've played even though it was often far from balanced. I will say though that when you have an unbalanced game, it certainly requires a more careful (for lack of a better word) approach to the game from both a design and a player/GM point of view. Now if that care is not taken, then you have problems in my opinion. This is why I chose option 3 in the poll because I think you can certainly create a system that is fun and entertaining despite a lack of balance, and the GM can certainly run a system that is not balanced and still provide an entertaining game. But, things are a lot easier if the game is balanced.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I think arguing the wording of an online, self-selecting poll is the "Stand By Me" argument about who is stronger, Superman or Mighty Mouse? The "answer" was Superman, because Might Mouse was nothing but a cartoon. Such polls are a bit of fun, and maybe a starting place for a bit of insight, but they prove absolutely nothing. If they are worded well, you might actually get that bit of insight from one. That's all.

On the general idea of balance, I don't mind some inbalance, as long as it is:

1. Obvious, and
2. The levers for adjusting it are equally obvious and also easy/convenient to manipulate.

The 3E wizard, merely to pick an example at random, passes the first test but not the second. A good DM can balance the wizard for awhile--and over the course of the right campaign, maybe even balance the wizard well across the whole campaign--but this takes more work and knowledge than are warranted for the payoff. And just as a note, one of the biggest drawbacks, IMHO, to the idea of "weak at start, cosmic power at end of career" balance is that it teaches new DMs the wrong lessons. It takes awhile for them to get over the idea of the wizard as weak because of early lessons, and makes it harder for them to balance the wizard at the end.

As far as solutions, one of the things I would like to see in 4E is a change to rituals to make them more variable and more risky--compensated in some cases by better results. Now, keeping with making the "levers" obvious and convenient, there should be multiple ways for them to fail. But there should also be partial success built into the system, as the default--and in fact, the most expected result.

For example, a teleport ritual as it is now takes gold, time, and a skill roll. Make the roll, you get something perfect. Fail it, and you get get nothing. Boring! More than any other version of D&D, 4E makes characters capable of handling a botched teleport. So make that the assumed result. If you almost complete the magic, but not quite perfectly, you get close to your target but not right on it. So you probably need to fight or sneak or talk to get where you originally wanted to go. Make the perfect teleport a function of lots of resources expended, lots of time, and occasionally a bit of luck. Make the complete fail rare. Usually, you get something servicable but imperfect.

Such a system has several obvious applications for "combat rituals" that fire off big effects (possibly handled by multiple ritual casters working on the same one). The party starts one looking for the big effect. If it gets bogged down and stopped part way, they get a partial effect. The excitement is not, "Do we effectively nullify the dragon's armor or not," but rather, "Just how much of the dragon's armor do we compromise?"

I am advocating effectively a whole new sub system (or replacement of the ritual sub sytem) here. So that would take a lot of design work and testing. But one element that I think should be there is something that I'm experimenting with in a homebrew system that I call, "pressure". Basically, it is a feedback loop built into the system such that the closer you get to full success, the more likely future failure becomes. It strongly biases the system towards partial success, and is robust in the face of unexpected modifiers. The idea is to make the starting of such a "ritual" very attractive--you get lots of payoff for your resources and opportunity costs (such as 4E action economy). But at some point, pushing becomes not worth it.

Pressure produces the best kind of balance of all--it is self-regulating to the preferences of the people sitting at that table, at that moment.