Class Balance - why?

[Majoru Oakheart]

As for designing the world and such. If you're designing things without knowing your PCs potential don't blame the system.

Why is that? When I sit down to play Monopoly, I don't have to change the rules or do preparations in advance based on one of the other players is playing the Boot. I don't change the rules of Settlers of Catan based on the fact that STEVE is playing with us vs when BOB plays with us. But those games play fine without changing anything based on who is playing because the system was designed balanced.

Here's an idea. The potential of ALL 5th level characters is the same(or very close to the same) so that you can say "The characters are 5th level, they have the ability to easily get through locks that are DC 15, but DC 30 will be impossible for them. If I put a DC 30 lock in this room, I can expect they won't be able to enter." Instead, I have to wait to find out if they have a Wizard since he'll be able to open it easily(or teleport through or make a hole through the wall) and have to change my adventure accordingly.

That's not an arms race, it's just intelligent creation. If the world itself doesn't recognize the PCs as part of the world, it's silly. Why wouldn't the big bad guy know that wizards are powerful foes and can turn invisible, shoot fireballs, teleport, etc?....This is all completely normal. A good world combines everything so nothing seems made for anyone specifically, it seems like a natural creation to living in a magical setting.

It is in SOME D&D worlds. Not in others. Say I want to run a game where the land outside of a kingdom's borders are unexplored. There are 250,000 people in this kingdom and that is the only civilization that they know.

In this kingdom, there are wizards. But their order numbers 725(the same percentage of the population that is doctors in the US) or so. Most people in the country have never seen a Wizard. There are tales of what they can do, but no one knows exactly except the Wizards themselves which they keep hidden to avoid anyone being able to oppose them.

So, why would all the enemies plan to have a Wizard show up? What COULD they even do to plan for a Wizard?

Or even if we consider a slightly more magic plentiful world. Say there are 2500 Wizards in the kingdom. That's still only 1 in 100. And with the technology level of most D&D campaigns, that means most people have still never met or even seen a Wizard in real life.

Sure, as the DM you know the exact abilities of a Wizard. But most people on most D&D worlds would have no idea. The abilities of Wizards would be past on via Bards and stories that would act like a giant game of Broken Telephone until the abilities didn't resemble what they could ACTUALLY do at all.

And finding a Wizard willing to help you by warding your entire building against the abilities of Wizards would be next to impossible and would cost more money than most people have.

Yes you're designing around the wizard, just like by having guards you're designing around the rogue or the fighter. By having traps you're designing around the rogue.

I don't put traps in the game to design around the Rogue. I put the traps in there to give the PCs a challenge. If they have a Rogue they can defeat the challenge by disarming it. If they don't have a Rogue they may defeat it by dodging/avoiding the trap or smashing the trap with their weapons/spells. I know that regardless of the party composition, they will be able to pass the trap, just using different methods.

I put guards in front of buildings to prevent people from getting in, regardless of their class. They aren't put there as a design around the Fighter or Rogue. They can stab swords into Clerics and Wizards the same way they can a Fighter or Rogue.

If all you're saying ultimately is that it just takes a bit more time, that's totally understandable. But really it's just a level of consideration. Wizards are insane but if you assume the world also knows that, it isn't so weird to have elements designed to hinder them sometimes. Just like sometimes the rogue has no trap to disable or lock to pick, because instead it's magical. It's really no different.

Except that magic locks can be picked by Rogues in 3e and 4e.

But, yes, my point is it takes more time than it should and seems contrived when you do it ALL the time. If you come across one enemy who is extremely rich and his warehouse has a magic lock on it that can't be picked and needs to be dispelled with magic and you think "Wow, this guy has to be rich to be able to afford this!" then it's special. If your thought is "Of course he has a magic lock. Every house in the city has a magic lock." then there is a problem. Of course, the reason they all have magic locks is because the DM planned against the Wizard and wants to make sure that he has to use up his spells on things like locks rather than combat spells to balance him". Meanwhile it causes the Rogue to go "Why did I come along? All of these doors are warded against picking. You don't need me."

I was one of the Triad members in Living Greyhawk back in 3.5e. When you read through some of the higher level adventures from later in the campaign, the amount of contrivances to stop high level players were completely out of whack. Our campaign had to follow the rules without any house rules, and we were never allowed to destroy equipment...that was considered unfair.

So, by the end there was an adventure where Devils and Demons are fighting each other and the PCs come into the room in the middle of it. They both turn around and attack the PCs. Each Demon and Devil had no less than 6 spells put on them, each with caster level 20. The adventure instructed you to start their durations the moment the PCs entered. The spells in question were a mix of Cleric, Druid, and Wizard spells that none of the Demons or Devils there had the ability to cast. And at least one of the spells had a range of Personal.

The reason they had all those spells up is because the adventure was designed for level 14 characters, and by this point the campaign staff had realized that Wizards were too powerful and without that suite of protection spells the battle would be so short as to be insignificant. I once talked to the author and asked him "How could they even do that? It seems like we are stuck in an arms race against the PCs and now we're writing things into adventures that isn't even possible just to defeat their powers." He said "Well, they could have had all the spells stored in Ioun stones and cast them from there just before the PCs enter the room." I said "But they didn't have any Ioun stones with them." He said "Well, the text says a Wizard passed through the room just before the players get there. Maybe he took them."

As a side note, they all had to be 20th level caster level because PCs have this tendency to cast Dispel Magic and remove all the spells from enemies, reducing them back down to a level they could beat easily.

Also, I'd like to note that even with all those extra spells, most people playing the adventure thought it was too easy.

 

[SlyDoubt]

Fair enough. Those are all good points.

And by magic lock I meant a lock that is magical not at all physical. I don't put guards around places for the rogue or fighter either. I meant guards for spellcasters actually but it doesn't matter. Regardless to design a world that the PCs live in without the world knowing that the PCs live there is strange. You can make any kind of world, like the one you described and still make it a challenge. It probably is more work, but I'm ok with that.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

And by magic lock I meant a lock that is magical not at all physical. I don't put guards around places for the rogue or fighter either. I meant guards for spellcasters actually but it doesn't matter. Regardless to design a world that the PCs live in without the world knowing that the PCs live there is strange. You can make any kind of world, like the one you described and still make it a challenge. It probably is more work, but I'm ok with that.

Of course the world is aware of PCs. Just not these specific PCs unless they have reason to. They are aware that there are people with swords. They are aware that some Wizards can teleport, some can fly, some can turn invisible. They are aware that some people are stealthy and can sneak past people.

But they aren't aware that the heroes of the story have a Wizard until their spies tell them that or they run into them first hand. They aren't aware that the PC Wizard doesn't know Fly or that he does know Teleport. It's also been my experience that most villains find out about the PCs about 10 seconds before the PCs kill them. And no more than half of them have enough intelligence to plan for the PCs at all.

And it's not just hard to challenge a group without giving the NPCs knowledge they don't have...it's downright impossible in some editions of D&D. Well, without the battle going something like this

DM: "The horribly evil Undead creature shambles out of the nearest sewer manhole cover, it's 40 feet tall and horribly ugly." (DM thinks to himself: They are 14th level and this creature is CR 20, according to the DMG, this is instant death for a 14th level party, but they've defeated everything lower I've thrown at them easily.)
DM: "The enemy uses an area of effect attack, DC 37 save or die."
Rogue: "You realize that means we all need 17s to succeed, right? Yeah, we all die."
Cleric: "Actually, it's a death magic spell, I cast Death Ward on me and the Wizard. We're immune."
Rogue: "Alright, so only the rest of us die."
Wizard: "Alright, my turn. Quickened True Strike, Disintegrate. 212 points of damage."
DM: "Right. It dies."

 

[billd91]

Why is that? When I sit down to play Monopoly, I don't have to change the rules or do preparations in advance based on one of the other players is playing the Boot. I don't change the rules of Settlers of Catan based on the fact that STEVE is playing with us vs when BOB plays with us. But those games play fine without changing anything based on who is playing because the system was designed balanced.

I wouldn't consider that a very good comparison. Monopoly is a directly competitive game with a very limited set of capabilities of the players. That said, you might want to adjust your strategy if you know about how the player tends to play - aggressive in his property upgrades, hoarder until he can manage to afford more expensive properties?

Now let's compare to Advanced Squad Leader. In that game, a player is well advised to study the capabilities of his opponent's units on the scenario card because they are highly variable. And the game will be different depending on who you are playing. Do they aggressively scout with half squads down the wings of the board? Do they tend to use assault movement and the advance phase to slowly grind up the board or make use of Soviet human waves/Japanese banzai charges, dashes through smoke to make faster gains? This game is more open-ended in what the player can do and with more complex pieces. More consideration is necessary. And there are scenario based balance adjustments that can be made to compensate between players with different skill levels.

Now look at RPGs. They're even more open-ended than ASL, with characters that are potentially more complex. Yeah, RPGs are going to need a bit more consideration than Monopoly or Settlers of Catan to make them fit what my players want and how they play.

 

[SlyDoubt]

Of course the world is aware of PCs. Just not these specific PCs unless they have reason to. They are aware that there are people with swords. They are aware that some Wizards can teleport, some can fly, some can turn invisible. They are aware that some people are stealthy and can sneak past people.

But they aren't aware that the heroes of the story have a Wizard until their spies tell them that or they run into them first hand. They aren't aware that the PC Wizard doesn't know Fly or that he does know Teleport. It's also been my experience that most villains find out about the PCs about 10 seconds before the PCs kill them. And no more than half of them have enough intelligence to plan for the PCs at all.

And it's not just hard to challenge a group without giving the NPCs knowledge they don't have...it's downright impossible in some editions of D&D. Well, without the battle going something like this

DM: "The horribly evil Undead creature shambles out of the nearest sewer manhole cover, it's 40 feet tall and horribly ugly." (DM thinks to himself: They are 14th level and this creature is CR 20, according to the DMG, this is instant death for a 14th level party, but they've defeated everything lower I've thrown at them easily.)
DM: "The enemy uses an area of effect attack, DC 37 save or die."
Rogue: "You realize that means we all need 17s to succeed, right? Yeah, we all die."
Cleric: "Actually, it's a death magic spell, I cast Death Ward on me and the Wizard. We're immune."
Rogue: "Alright, so only the rest of us die."
Wizard: "Alright, my turn. Quickened True Strike, Disintegrate. 212 points of damage."
DM: "Right. It dies."

I don't really know what you expect people to say. "Yes you're absolutely right, what a fool I am!"

3.X doesn't work for you. For a lot of people, it works just fine. Not everyone who it works for specifically likes super wizards/clerics. Classes will never be balanced. I would rather have a system of unique classes with unique abilities than one where everything is tuned so (considering combat only) everyone can participate equally. No thanks. The game is so wide open that to limit it like that just seems like a bad idea.

I really hope they don't feel locked into that idea. That's the bigger concern. Worrying about class 'balance' seems like a recipe for a bland game. I would rather see unbalanced but exciting and interesting classes. Because ultimately D&D is not a computer game. A human is running it and a human can alter and make judgement to even things out where needed. I'd rather the framework push into new and fun ideas than be confined to "well this class has 'a' so we need to give an 'a' equivalent to everyone".

I don't think lessons learned in 4E should be forgotten or thrown out; definitely not. But look where 4E ended up. Hopefully they have been looking hard and long at what worked and what was simply a result of this balance dogma everyone seems so obsessed with. Because sacrifices are made for balance. With a game like D&D which is neither competitive nor run by a cpu, I don't see the absolute need for this.

I want an edition where everyone has stuff only they can do that is unique in style and application. The wizard is a problem because by his nature he is supposed to have access to all sorts of magic that can do nearly anything. That's what makes him wizardly. I'd like to see the wizard able to do ridiculous stuff and still able to do things like a fighter or rogue can do (like knock) but not as well. I think there is definitely a very achievable middle ground and I hope wotc explores that thoroughly.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I don't really know what you expect people to say. "Yes you're absolutely right, what a fool I am!"

I wouldn't expect you to say that, but it'd be correct.

Worrying about class 'balance' seems like a recipe for a bland game. I would rather see unbalanced but exciting and interesting classes.

Nope. Imbalance actually gives you a bland game, once you've 'mastered it.' Once you figure out that there are only 3 top-tier classes and everything else is a waste of time, a balanced game with a dozen viable classes starts to look a lot less bland.

I want an edition where everyone has stuff only they can do that is unique in style and application. The wizard is a problem because by his nature he is supposed to have access to all sorts of magic that can do nearly anything. That's what makes him wizardly.

See, that's just circular. A wizard is supposed to be broken because that what's make him a wizard? Why? Because wizards were broken before. Classes need to be balanced because that makes each class a viable choice and give you a more varied, more interesting game that handles a greater breadth of play styles.

For far too long, D&D got by on being familiar, on sucking the way it always sucked, rather than making the big leap and actually becoming a better, modern game. The virulent rejection of die-hards to that leap is positively tragic. If the grognards win, they'll get the game they want, but it'll die with them.

 

[hanez]

DM: "The horribly evil Undead creature shambles out of the nearest sewer manhole cover, it's 40 feet tall and horribly ugly." (DM thinks to himself: They are 14th level and this creature is CR 20, according to the DMG, this is instant death for a 14th level party, but they've defeated everything lower I've thrown at them easily.)
DM: "The enemy uses an area of effect attack, DC 37 save or die."
Rogue: "You realize that means we all need 17s to succeed, right? Yeah, we all die."
Cleric: "Actually, it's a death magic spell, I cast Death Ward on me and the Wizard. We're immune."
Rogue: "Alright, so only the rest of us die."
Wizard: "Alright, my turn. Quickened True Strike, Disintegrate. 212 points of damage."
DM: "Right. It dies."

uh....... Is that supposed to be a real situation? In your campaign clerics can cast death ward in response to an attack? Don't see where thats in the rules. And it is only applicable to one target... soooo hows he doing it for the wizard?

And if disintegrate is 2d6 per level, and the wizard is level 14, it seems to me we are looking at 84 damage? At that level the fighter has 3 attacks per round, EVERY SINGLE ROUND. Wheres the imbalance again?

And why is the DM throwing such that encounter at them anyways? Because hes wants to prove a point on a forum board or because he wants to run a fun game?

 

[SlyDoubt]

I wouldn't expect you to say that, but it'd be correct.

Nope. Imbalance actually gives you a bland game, once you've 'mastered it.' Once you figure out that there are only 3 top-tier classes and everything else is a waste of time, a balanced game with a dozen viable classes starts to look a lot less bland.


See, that's just circular. A wizard is supposed to be broken because that what's make him a wizard? Why? Because wizards were broken before. Classes need to be balanced because that makes each class a viable choice and give you a more varied, more interesting game that handles a greater breadth of play styles.

For far too long, D&D got by on being familiar, on sucking the way it always sucked, rather than making the big leap and actually becoming a better, modern game. The virulent rejection of die-hards to that leap is positively tragic. If the grognards win, they'll get the game they want, but it'll die with them.

I give up. I'm being as even and reasonable as is possible and yet this is the kind of response I get.

Here, it's simple. You enjoy your thing. I enjoy my thing. Stay away from my thing just like I stay away from your thing.

We can both hope that 5E is our thing. Or not. Maybe you hope it's your thing. I don't. All I want is for history and previous designs and ideas not to be forgotten for the sake of balance.

 

[Umbran]

I wouldn't expect you to say that, but it'd be correct.

Tony, you've been around a while. Did you forget that insulting folks, even slyly, indirectly, or by implication, is apt to get you into trouble?

We have had enough edition warring. You may well feel your approach is the better choice, but if you cannot be diplomatic in how you present it, you will continue to have issues - with other posters and with moderation.

Remember - the people on the boards are more important than game preferences. Treat them kindly, and with respect, please.

If anyone has questions about this, please take it to e-mail or Private Message with the Moderator of your choice. Thanks, all.

 

[pemerton]

The wizard is a problem because by his nature he is supposed to have access to all sorts of magic that can do nearly anything. That's what makes him wizardly.

Gandalf is pretty wizardly (in my book, at least), but he can't do nearly anything. He can't fly or teleport - his best movement spells are his friendships with a really fast horse and with a giant eagle. (And the eagle friendship is clearly a "per session" ability at best.) His artillery ability is highly limited. He can't cast knock (rather, he runs through lists of magical passwords).

The wizard in my 4e game is pretty wizardly. He conjures walls of flame, giant hands made of ice, and clouds of force-knives. He can teleport his enemies around the battlefield, or enshroud them in fire or darkness. He can open doorways between physically separate locations. He can consult with the Mystic Sages to learn ancient lore, perform object reading, and place a wide variety of wards.

Nevertheless, in play he does not overshadow the fighter. His elemental attacks are no more dangerous than the fighter's elemental attacks (a contrast with pre-3E D&D). And his battlefield control, while different from the fighters (longer ranged, in particular) is not superior - although it does have more powerful spikes.

For far too long, D&D got by on being familiar, on sucking the way it always sucked, rather than making the big leap and actually becoming a better, modern game. The virulent rejection of die-hards to that leap is positively tragic. If the grognards win, they'll get the game they want, but it'll die with them.

For me, this sums up the great puzzle about 4e and its reception.

There is obviously something about classic D&D, and the dependance upon a type of GM discretion in both encounter design and action resolution that almost no other RPG seems to have, that is immensely appealing to the audience for the game. I don't get it, but it seems hard to deny that it is there.