Class Balance - why?

[Majoru Oakheart]

I think it is broken to you and the style which you want to play that is totally different than saying it is broken no matter what style you play.

But shouldn't it be the goal of the system to work fine no matter what style of game you play? Shouldn't the designers sit down and say "If someone picks the absolutely best options in this game and the DM is running a pre-written adventure without room to use a roleplaying balance to the character, and he's a new DM who doesn't know the rules well enough to pick and choose which spells he is banning from his game or changing just to fix the system, plus he doesn't have enough time or the inclination to analyze which spells even need changing...if someone picks the best options in this game, they won't outshine the rest of the group that badly."

I absolutely think it's the job of the system to not even allow a player to create Angel Summoner in a game where the BMX Bandit is a character.

I never claimed that Pathfinder was successful just because of its magic system I am saying that one of its many appeals to certain gamers is that it kept the magic system we enjoy and don't find broken which is why a lot of bought it. It was the main reason the 15 people I know bought it. Are there other reasons sure there are.

I have friends who play 4E and love it and they didn't switch because they found wizards broken they switched to 4E because of other reasons.

Yes they did so what over the years spells have been changed. I nerfed polymoprh a long time ago. Just because you nerf and change some spells does not mean the entire class is broken.

That's correct. I've nerfed 1 or 2 powers in 4e that got overpowered in 4e. But in order to nerf wizards to the point they are balanced, you'd have to overhaul them much more than a spell or two. There are entire categories of spells that need to be removed. Actually, pretty much all of them. And you can't have a Wizard with no spells left.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

Mostly I agreed with your post, but I don't think this is fair. [MENTION=6675987]Dellamon[/MENTION] is not saying that a good GM can fix the rules. S/he is saying (i) that the action resolution system has (potentially) two components: the mechanics, and the exercise of mechanically unmediated narrative power ("free roleplaying"); and (ii) that when this mechanically unmediated narrative power is in the hands of the GM, it can compensate for or override the imbalances one sees when looking purely at the mechanical elements of action resolution.

To me, "free roleplaying" should not have any bearing on the mechanics.

It says "Sure, the Wizard has extremely powerful abilities, but I have the absolute authority as the DM to take them away whenever I want or whenever the player uses those powers in ways I don't like. I have the option to put in countermeasures specifically designed to decrease his/her power whenever I feel like it."

Which is all true, as the DM, if you want a player dead or powerless, there is nothing they can do to stop you. But it is identical to the Fallacy: "There is no problem with the Wizard, because I as the DM can use my powers to change the mechanics of the Wizard(using "free roleplaying") to a point where they aren't a problem anymore."

Thus, "There is no problem except the one that exists." But just because you have the ability, through any means you have of changing the power of a Wizard doesn't excuse it from being overpowered in the first place.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

TL;DR

I got through page 4 and never saw what I was thinking expressed:

#1) Before we can discuss balance, we must first decide what IS balance. To decided what balance is we must discuss what D&D is. I think the best description for D&D that would suit most people is that it is a story and a game at the same time. However, when we compare a D&D game to works of fiction, there is a critical difference. Nearly all fiction has a single protagonist, or rotates narration of protagonists. In D&D, all the characters are equally-important protagonists. Would you play in a game if you had to play Pippin? It's great to be the main guy, but can you convince people to come every week to play somebody useless. So, the characters must all be equivalent in terms of importance of the story. We'll come back to the story later.

You were on the right track but then you stumbled a bit. You cannot compare D&D to a book in some ways. Books are predetermined while D&D is not. Also, everyone is the "main" character right off the bat. There is no measure as to how someone will end up being the main character because of how much they do in a fight. Frodo was essentially your main character in LotR but Aragorn actually did more but since the story is based around the "ring" and it's destruction that gave Frodo the spotlight. Again, that is a book that will never change no matter how many times you read it, D&D doesn't work that way. How is spotlight measured? How much DPS you do in a fight? I know lots of people who would play a Pippin type character so your example isn't very good. In D&D the monsters do have a chance while in a book, the monsters only win if the author wrote it that way.

#2) We discussed story, but it's also a game. This is pretty easy. If the horse in monopoly was better than the shoe, then the choice between them is not a choice at all. Likewise D&D. Do all the pieces of the game have to work exactly the same? No. Do they have to be able to do the as other pieces? No. If each person plays a single piece in a game, each piece has to be equivalent in the mechanics of the game. More on that later as well.

Each piece should work differently but stay with in the rules of the game to be able to achieve different results depending on the situation.

#3) Let's talk about the rules and marry together what we discussed about story and game. If the game has problems, the DM has the capability of addressing them, whether these are global or campaign-specific problems. The real question is, is it worth it? There is an arbitrary line where a DM will give up wrestling with the rules and play a different game instead. This addresses the need for at least a starting point for balance. So what comprises a D&D game? I think that the broad definition would be that most reasonable people run a D&D game as a combination of mostly-story events combined with the mostly-mechanical combats. Too far one way, and you are just imrov acting. Too far the other way and it's a boardgame.

Surprisingly enough, lots of people will take a game and add their own spin to it no matter what it is. Having rules that are too balanced can hinder DM's who want to add their own spin because it's easy to tip the scales when a system is very balanced. When balance comes at the expense of fun then everyone loses.

#4) A small conversation about characters being equivalent. Say I cut 2 pieces of a cake and 2 people get to choose them. The optimum solution is when they both think they got the better piece of cake. This is possible because there is no single way to objectively quantify which piece is better if they start out similarly. The way that both people can think they got the better piece is that the pieces are initially similar but each offer a slight difference more appealing to one of the choosers. I choose the one with more frosting, you want the one with more candy bits. This is what needs to be strived for. The fallacy of 4E is that the designers determined to make all pieces equal to all people always. What they got was a limited, kinda boring game. Instead, we need to have a game that starts us all in a similar position but with many nuances that make each character seem the best to the person playing it.

Thing is, not everyone wants that bigger slice of cake. Someone may only want a smaller piece which suits them fine. I agree with the frosting and candy part, some people want pie but someone may want a cherry on their piece .

See above.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

That first line right there that they won't find ways around the encounter unless you let them is imo a form of railroading.

I don't want to get into the railroading debate again. Suffice to say, I don't believe railroading is bad. Also, nearly every thing a DM does is "railroading" by at least one definition of railroading.

I don't believe the situation is railroading, it doesn't force the PCs to do anything. It only limits their options. They have the option to talk to the bridge keeper or they have the option to turn around and go back. They have the option to trick the bridge keeper into letting them past or bribing him or negotiating or threatening him or complimenting him until he agrees. They can take the long way around the pit, finding a way that doesn't involve crossing the bridge. They can kill him and walk over the bridge.

All I want to do is limit their ability to bypass my NPC entirely.

As a DM I deal with what happens when my players turn my perfectly planned and crafted encounters on their ear by not doing what I expected.

This is all fine and dandy until your players find the loophole in your campaign that you didn't notice that allows them to skip 6 months of storyline you were planning for your campaign. Especially, if you wrote up extensive notes and maps, along with made NPCs and planned out monster encounters for that time.

I've had it happen 3 or 4 times now. Each and every time I had to resort to an Out of Character discussion with the party about how I didn't foresee them having that ability or trying that tactic and that it will cause too much damage to the whole campaign if they take that action. So much so that the storyline will be no fun for me, as the DM. And I refuse to run a game that isn't fun for me in addition to the players. So, I gave them 2 options...the only ones I could come up with: Take their action back or have someone else come up with a campaign and spend the effort to run it.

They took it back.

Luckily, I haven't had to have that conversation with anyone since 4e came out.

If 4E truly allows the DM that much power to railroad the players and take their free will away then there is another reason why I hope they get rid of that rule set.

It's not about taking away free will, as I mention above. It's the difference between running a cop game in modern day earth...and an equivalent game where one of the characters is superman.

In the first game you can decide in advance that the villain killed the victim and is hiding out in a house on the south part of town. You can anticipate that the group will track down clues, talk to witnesses, eventually track the perp to his house, and have a shootout as the perp has a gun. But that the perp had an accomplice who there is no evidence of in the house or alley..so he'll be around as a villain for next time. You can then safely draw a map for the shootout, create stats for the perp and his accomplice, create the personalities of the witnesses as well as the gang member who knows what the perps name is and even start thinking about what kind of crimes the accomplice will do in the next adventure.

In the 2nd game, superman simply flies around the early until he reverses time to the point where the murder happens. Then stops the murder from ever occurring and catches the perp and his accomplice at the same time. You then have to throw out everything you had planned to do.

Saying "I don't want superman in my game, and I'm not going to allow it" isn't railroading anyone or taking away their choice. It's saying "I'd like to play a game that doesn't have to deal with the abilities of superman. I don't want every villain to have to carry kryptonite in their pockets just to have a game that I can keep some control over."

And that's what you have to do with a Wizard around. Every villain has to have the resources to block scrying, teleporting, death magic, invisibility, flying, dimensional traveling magic, and so one and so forth. Put it all together and it might as well be Kryptonite with how rare it SHOULD be, but how common it turns out to be, simply so that the Wizard doesn't have to be any less powerful.

a wizard needs to be rather high level to teleport the entire party to teleport a party of four they have to be 18 level

Also, not sure where you're getting this one. The pathfinder version of teleport AND the 3.5e version are exactly the same in this case: You can teleport yourself and one extra person per 3 caster levels. A party of 4 can be teleported at 9th level(12th for a 5 person group). And by the time you are 12th level, with the bonus spell from a high stat, you can cast 4 of them a day, so you can go back and get another 4 people if your group is larger than that. I'm not talking about Epic games. I'm talking about 12-18th level games.

We had a wizard who was 14th level who used to teleport back to his house each night from the dungeon just so that his butler could make him a home cooked meal in the morning. We had 6 players in our group, so he regretted that he couldn't bring us all back. But he assured us that he'd bring us some scones.

Most games don't usually go that high level Pazio Adventure Path for example stop at 15 level so if you use them a wizard is never going to be powerful enough to teleport the entire party.

Yeah, the reason they stop at that level is because the system doesn't handle high levels well. Mainly because of spellcasters and their ability to ruin any adventure you come up with.

 

[Belphanior]

I'm out of this discussion, btw. I don't think anybody is going to convince anybody else here, everything we say seems to be a repetition of the same steps over and over.

I do want to leave one final thought though:

There are people who don't see a balance problem. They've never come across it. Ok, that's fair enough. But why should the game cater only to them? If there's also a bunch of people who claim they do have problems, why shouldn't the game address this? Why is, "I have never had problems with this", considered a retort against the people who did have problems with this? People, your own experiences are not the only yardstick against which to measure out there. If a lot of people make complaints, something ain't right. Even if you don't see it.

 

[pemerton]

To me, "free roleplaying" should not have any bearing on the mechanics.

I feel a bit silly replying because our outlook is very similar, but I did feel moved by some sympathy for the OP to say: I tend to agree with you, but the other view - that free roleplaying can bear on the mechanics in various ways - is very strongly entrenched among some D&D players, and a whole version of the game (2nd ed AD&D) arguably was predicated on the idea, and so it's probably at least something the designers of a unity edition should think about.

We had a wizard who was 14th level who used to teleport back to his house each night from the dungeon just so that his butler could make him a home cooked meal in the morning. We had 6 players in our group, so he regretted that he couldn't bring us all back. But he assured us that he'd bring us some scones.

Terrific stuff! In my Rolemaster game where this happened, the whole party were wizards (except the warrior mage, who nevertheless took the build that gave access to teleport), and every day they would teleport from the wilds of the Howling Hills (on the NW of the Greyhawk map) to the comfort of their palace in Rauxes (on the SE of the Greyhawk map). So no need to bring anyone else scones.

These examples, for me, also undermine the injunction to use time pressure or the threat of retaliation to shut down the 15 min day. When PCs are teleporting back to these sorts of secure bases, it strains verisimilitude to have their enemies routinely turning up to threaten them.

 

[Ahnehnois]

I don't agree with this. The issue of the way in which the mechanics should distribute power among the players is not just an issue for "an obnoxious group of players". It is relevant to any game in which player agency is at the forefront, because players exercise that agency by wielding their power. [MENTION=12401]Belphanior[/MENTION] gives a nice example, and I have no reason to think that s/he is obnoxious as either a player or a GM.

My intent in posting was not to say that balance is exclusively the concern of a malcontentious group of players, but that it is preferentially their concern. And, more importantly, that the designers seem to give their voice too much weight. The corollary is that game design has moved towards balance at the expense of other valid concerns.

I certainly try to keep my game balanced, but that's one of many goals, and I find balance is highly situational and specific to the person playing. Thus, it's the DM's job more than the game designers' to balance things.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I certainly try to keep my game balanced, but that's one of many goals, and I find balance is highly situational and specific to the person playing. Thus, it's the DM's job more than the game designers' to balance things.

Both have a job in that.

The DM has to build scenarios where the players and their characters are equally involved (or at least as equal as required is for them to be satisfied. Some players like a more passive role, others need more spotlight). It doesn't really matter if one player has a character that is perfectly fine for combat if he doesn't like combat very much, or another one loves combat but hates exploration. That's something the DM has to consider and the designer can't fix.

But the designer can create a baseline balance that makes it easier to achieve these goals. In combat encounters, can everyone contribute meaningful? (And can we make the contribution "easy" but still relevant for someone that doesn't like them too much but doesn't want his party left hanging?). Similar for other types of "encounters" and challenges. Exploration. Social Interaction. Puzzles.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Apologies if I reiterate something already addressed. I only skimmed any of the new responses that weren't addressed specifically at myself.

The opposite is also true for me if I had to change everything I find that makes 4 unplayable for my group I would find it more work then I want do.

Who's talking about making you play 4e? I've already said I think classes should be balanced but unhomogenized. Is it that you simply don't believe that it's possible, or something else?

You realize that if it was a fact that most people find 3E magic to be over powered and unplayable Pathfinder would not be doing so well.

That doesn't make sense. There are plenty of things about 4e that they might not like, that would cause them to not switch. Also, clearly there is a play style (yours) that doesn't have the balance issues seen in other play styles under 3e.

Unsurprisingly, I don't think everyone should have to adopt your play style just to play D&D. Clearly, there are other ways of playing it, and there are plenty of people who have voiced umbrage with the 3e magic system. It's not like I'm the only one.

EDIT: To expound on this further, with my group's preferences / play style, while we did go out of our way not to step on other people's toes most of the time, it often felt like we were walking on eggshells with the 3e magic system. For us, at least, it did feel like we were playing with one arm tied behind our backs, and it didn't much appeal to us. We prefer a system that can be driven to near its limits without breaking, because it cheapens the experience for us to have to hold back. I think that's part of why we like 4e. We never have to hold back and neither does the DM.

You say that a good DM and players can compensate for the imbalance inherent in the 3e magic system. I say they shouldn't have to. As a DM, I have better things to spend my time on than trying to figure out ways to nerf the wizard and raise the fighter into the spotlight. I'd rather give them both opportunities to shine, without having to worry that the fighter will be atomized during the wizard's moment, or that the fighter's moment will be trivialized when the wizard resolves the scenario with a single spell (probably not even realizing that the moment was intended for the fighter, but rather thinking he was helping out).

The argument about the newbie and inexperienced player does not hold any water we were all inexperienced and new to the game at one time. And all the old editions have these kind of spells in them and so for 30 yeas we managed to play with them.

And let me tell you, some of our early games were terrible! Just because I say my group is polite doesn't mean that that was the case when I first started playing. I didn't even know this group back then.

Over the years my group has had plenty of newbies in it our current game as a person who had never played before not RPGs or video games she is playing a sorcerer and she has not had an issue with any of this. She did take improved invisibility as one of her spells known and sometimes she cast it on herself but she but more often she cats it on the rest of us when we need to all be sneaky.

Sure she looked at knocked and we explained to her why for a sorcerer with a rogue in the party is really is a waste of a slot.

DMs need to guide new players no matter what class they play and that means pointing out spell choices and other choices.

That only works if there's someone experienced at the table. I, myself, am a black box self-taught D&D player. I taught the rest of my friends, after I figured out the basics. And guess what? I had no clue whatsoever that taking Knock would be in bad taste. Given how low the 1st level Thief's starting percentages were, I probably would have advocated the idea.

Here is what I have gotten from this thread wizards should not be allowed to have any spells that might infringe on another class so no buffs, or spells to raise their ACs because that puts them in competition with the fighter.

They should not be allowed to have knock or spider climb or invisibility because that infringes on the rogue.

They should not have the ability to kill someone outright with a spell even if that spell has a save because that is not fair to the martial characters.

They should not have any spell that circumvents what a DM has planned even if that requires the wizard to be almost epic level.

They shouldn't have charm person because that takes away from the classes that have diplomacy. I guess using that logic they should not have domination either.

I am not sure what wizards should be allowed to do. Though I have often read that they should be bards because that is closer to Gandalf.

I really hope that WOTC realizes that not all people want such a neutered wizard that we want magic to be basically the way it has always been before 4E. Not saying that some tweaks are not needed magic item creation comes to mind.

And while I have no issue with a dial to turn magic down to 4E levels they need a dial to turn it up to older editions. If they don't have that I am not sure how many of us who didn't make the switch are going to be interest it is not like we don't have an in print game we can play.

I'm not saying that the wizard shouldn't be able to do any of those things. Only that he should not be able to do them as effectively as he does in 3e.

Invisibility shouldn't come into play until after a rouge gains Hide in Plain Sight. When Charm Person wears off, the creature should realize that it was magically beguiled and react accordingly.

Magic should have both limits and a price. It should not be the default go-to best option in most situations. Why even have a skill like Diplomacy if a 1st level spell like Charm is arguably better?

Shapechange s a druid spell not a wizard spell. And I find druids have the potential to be far more game breaking then any wizard.

Not only is Shapechange a druid spell, it's also a wizard spell and a cleric spell (animal domain). Druids are probably the most potent of the casting classes, I'll agree. The Wizard is nonetheless a better skeleton key though. Besides, the wizard is not the only issue. As I've previously stated, it's all casters. The wizard is just the example I keep using.

Like I said a simple fix for knock is make a noisy spell or give it a longer casting time.

But I wonder how many players would answer this if being chased by a red dragon about to eat you would you rather the rogue pick the lock of the door between you and safety or would you rather the wizard pull out their emergency scroll of knock and use it ?

HMM death but at least this one time the rogue feet were not stepped on or a chance to live. I just texted the player playing our party rogue and his answer was are you crazy get that door open now.

That's the problem! The wizard should not have the best emergency "get out of the locked room card". It should be the rogue, because a locked door is his schtick and his time to shine. It shouldn't be a choice between use the rogue and die, or use the wizard and live. Of course every player, including the rogue, will choose the second option. They'd have to be brain damaged to do otherwise! And therein lies the problem.

If anything, the rogue should have automatic success picking locks x time per day, and the wizard should always have to roll a check for knock. Or the rogue should have to roll as well, but the wizard's check is not as good.

When faced with a locked door and no time, the rogue should always be the first choice.

The problem is exactly that, in 3e, he's not.

I would rather have the freedom to deal with rude players by out of game methods then have things nerfed because it might be abused by rude players.

I want to make one thing clear that I don't think that you liking 4E and its playstyle is in any way wrong.

But can you also understand how annoying it gets to hear over and over the 3E magic is broken? 4E players don't like hearing it called a WOW clone well 3E players don't realy like hearing it called wizards and muggles.

I think a lot of this comes down to how you like magic in your game. I like powerful magic and spells that allow casters to do things that make the adventure easier for the rest of the party. I want spells like knock and find traps in my game because it gives me away to deal with not having a rogue other then just unlocking all the doors and having no traps. Or having to run a NPC rogue.

I sometimes want wizards to scry and I like having teleport in the game because it speeds up the ability of the party to get someplace in a hurry.

I don't think 3E is perfect I don't like item creation rules or metamagic. I don't like that fighters have nothing fun to do outside of combat. I hate the grapple rules and the turn rules I have been playing 3 since it came out and I can't keep them straight.

I think evasion should never get powerful enough not to take any damage from a spell unless it is available for all classes to take as a feat.

I think paladin should be a prestige class.

So there are imo lots of room for improvement unfortunately 4E didn't improve most of what my issues were except a big one it made DMing easier and made prep time go faster.

First, I'm not trying to knock 3e. It did a number of things well. I recognize that the magic system does work when using certain playstyles. I don't, however, feel that that is sufficient, as I believe that D&D should support as many play styles as possible. And there are definitely a few play styles out there for which it works quite poorly.

Honestly, I'd be fine with them doing an entire huge line of D&DN supplements on 3e style magics. I just don't think it should be the default, because then it becomes nigh impossible to house rule out or balance.

I have faith in the designers though. I think they'll be able to come up with a default design that's more flexible than 4e, yet more balanced than 3e. All it requires is a critical examination of the 3e spell list, and careful consideration of the implications of each spell's mechanics. Which in all fairness, would be a lot of work, but then again they're paid to do it!

Perhaps that will mean that the party has to hold out for a round or two while the wizard gathers the requisite mana to cast teleport as a single round action, and/or that long-range teleportation is only possible to a location with an existing teleportation circle. Perhaps it will mean that scrying can only be performed in certain remote magical locations, and therefore officially becomes part of the DM's purview. I certainly hope it means that when a door needs to be opened and there's no time, the rogue is the man for the job.

I do think, however, that it can be done.

 

[billd91]

You're right. It's people who enjoying playing wizards and those who don't enjoy being their torchbearers.

Now who's making the unsupported assumption why people play what they play? I'll give you a clue, it's not Elf Witch.