Free Will and Story

[N'raac]

First off, even if you're looking in a very reductionistic manner at game balance, mechanical elements are still too diverse to be characterized independent of context. Is it better, for example, to spend your feat on Skill Focus or Weapon Focus? It depends. It depends on whether you are likely to be able to acquire a good version of the specific weapon. It depends on how many attack rolls you are likely to roll, how likely they are to hit, and on a variety of other factors related to the difficulty of combat. It depends on what skill the Skill focus is for, how often it is likely to be rolled, what the DCs are, how useful the skill is likely to be...and a lot more. Most of which is decided by the DM. In one campaign, Weapon Focus (Longsword) might be close to the best feat available. In another, Skill Focus (Spot) might rule the day. You cannot tell which feat is better just by looking at the rules, no matter how knowledgeable you are or how hard you look. There are only very rare cases where one particular option is unambiguously better than the other, usually in different publications that are not cross-referenced very well.

Even if we restrict ourselves to pure combat feats, would you rather have Power Attack or Weapon Focus? If we have two GM's, one who favour Giants (low AC and high HP for their CR) an the other likes incorporeal undead (high AC, low HP for their CR) the answer is likely different between the two campaigns. "Balance" has a lot of variables. Ranks in Swim? Are we playing a High Seas pirate game or a desert scenario. [And Iif I just say "Arabian Nights", do I mean Aladdin or Sinbad?]

Bottom line - I agree there's a lot of variables and "objectively balanced/unbalanced" is pretty tough to spot.

Of course you can. In a balanced campaign, one which features equal amounts of combat and exploration and interaction (the three pillars if you will) then neither feat will be measurably better than another. You will get pretty much equal traction out of either feat. If the game leans more heavily on combat, then weapon focus is likely better, in that specific situation, which is actually outside the baseline presumptions of the game in the first place.

So do you want Power Attack or Weapon Focus? Now we have to assume an equal mix of types of opponents as well. "Perfect balance" can exist only in a specific hypothetical campaign, and every campaign is different.

Clerics in 3e are easily better than monks. In virtually any situation and certainly over the course of a campaign, a cleric will shine far more than a monk. It attacks better, does more damage, has way more options and is better out of combat as well. There's nothing a monk can do that a cleric can't do better. Never minding Druids. There's a reason people talk about CoDzilla. And, if you don't believe me, we'll take two groups through any module you care to name - my group is 3 clerics and a druid, your group is 4 monks, and we'll see who gets further.

This seems like a "PvP" structure - it's every man for himself. Monks are synergestic characters. The Monk is a lot better at getting past that line of grunts to get to the spellcaster 50' back while the warriors take care of the grunts. They're mobile, so they can help the Rogue benefit from his sneak attack. The Monk also has an advantage if we throw a lot of encounters against him without opportunity for rest and prayer - he doesn't run out of spells that need to be replenished. That doesn't mean that the Monk can't stand a power-up even in Pathfinder, much less 3e where non-spellcasters in general are quite disadvantaged. Want real power? A balanced team that focuses on enhancing team, rather than individual, power.

Trying to whitewash balance issues by pushing it off onto individual DM's is the reason why so many games fail. Many DM's, particularly starting ones, don't have the experience to know how to fix the broken systems. So, you get someone like me, who is interested in the nuts and bolts of gaming systems, sitting down at different tables, and the DM throws up their hands crying, "Hussar is a bad powergamer, his character just steamrolled over my encounter" when all I've done is pull stuff straight out of the PHB. I mean, I mentioned one DM crying powergamer earlier, when my cleric had two levels of half-elemental. Yeah, I'm a powergamer for taking off class levels in something that granted me fire resistance and the ability to cast burning hands a couple of times a day. Ooooh...

Care to refer me to the PHB references for half-elementals? I'd say that's a very powerful ability if the GM is using a lot of encounters featuring fire damage, and an extremely weak one if fire damage rarely, if ever, is encountered. The more aed material, the greater the prospect for overpowered, or underpowered, combinations. The Cleric got a lot more attention from both WoTC and 3rd party sourcebooks, so he gained options quickly. Options that could be combined to added power. If there were as many feats relevant to unarmed combat as there are for spellcasting and undead turning, the Monk would have a lot more options.

 

[sheadunne]

Care to refer me to the PHB references for half-elementals? I'd say that's a very powerful ability if the GM is using a lot of encounters featuring fire damage, and an extremely weak one if fire damage rarely, if ever, is encountered. The more aed material, the greater the prospect for overpowered, or underpowered, combinations. The Cleric got a lot more attention from both WoTC and 3rd party sourcebooks, so he gained options quickly. Options that could be combined to added power. If there were as many feats relevant to unarmed combat as there are for spellcasting and undead turning, the Monk would have a lot more options.

I believe he was talking about two different events.

Giving up class levels in a full caster class is usually a negative. Gaining fire resistance at low levels is no match for gaining miracle at higher levels, which is ultimately what the character is giving up. I would have said Hussar was nerfing his character in favor of flavor.

A straight cleric out of the PHB is a pretty potent character. When they added additional abilities to the class (such as the divine metamagic feat or the channeling feats) the class just got even better. A druid isn't as great if she doesn't take natural spell, but still above most other classes.

I think the important part to remember is that it's really not combat potency or skills that need balance, those are indeed a matter of character and campaign choices, but rather the narrative control elements that are primarily limited to casters. It's the utility of these classes that make balance an issue. Take for instance one of the most power narrative spells out there, teleport. This simple spell (or that variations that clerics and druids get), allows the character to bypass the narrative the DM has laid out in the game. You must travel the misty road to the tower of blah blah and do this important thing. The fighter shrugs and heads toward the road, it's his only option. The Wizard smirks and says haha to your narrative, I'm going to bypass all that and appear at the tower instead. Even spells like Speak with Dead, Rope Trick, Fly, Scrying, etc have profound effects on the narrative of the game. Now a practiced DM will have taken into account these elements, having played with them for possibly decades, but a inexperienced DM will be a bit flummoxed by them, as we all probably were the first time a group of players said, nah, we're going to bypass everything you created for tonight's game and jump right to the city across the sea.

How do you balance those elements with the other classes that don't get them? In earlier editions they were balanced with negatives. You might teleport into a wall or age 5 years if you cast a spell. However, those penalties often never came up in my experience. In 3x they attempted to give some spells an XP cost, but then created an XP system that rewarded being lower in XP, as it allowed the player to gain even more experience and potentially pass other characters. In 4e they removed the narrative elements into rituals (and gave everyone some in powers). This appealed to many players who were looking for a narrative balance between classes. I'm not sure damage differences and other effects were nearly as important to balance, but they did that as well (to some extent). It worked for some people and not for others. It didn't work for me because that's not what I expect or want from my D&D experience. D&D has always had narrative control issues and without them, it just feels different.

Now when I look at games outside of D&D, I usually look for ones that provide that narrative balance. If they don't have it, I might as well play D&D. When I consider the Jim/DM issue, I wonder if another game that gives Jim the narrative control while balancing the mechanical elements, wouldn't keep his "mess with" instincts in check. I don't know. I haven't looked over 5e in a while, have they added narrative balance?

 

[pemerton]

Those are assumptions about a DM, not GM. The term DM is pretty specific.

<snip>

Indeed. That's a different ballgame.

Yet the "different ballgame" includes 4e D&D.

So the term "DM" is not that specific.

And if you look back at a certain form of classic D&D - namely, the exploration of a level-based dungeon - there is also quite a high degree of what are functionally non-objective DCs, because the DCs are shaped by dungeon level and the players can choose which level their PCs will adventure on.

So your remarks about balance aren't particularly apposite to D&D as such. They apply to a certain style of D&D, which I personally would associate with later AD&D (say mid-80s on), and which clearly carried over into some (but not all) 3E play groups.

 

[pemerton]

I haven't looked over 5e in a while, have they added narrative balance?

I don't think so.

 

[Hussar]

So do you want Power Attack or Weapon Focus? Now we have to assume an equal mix of types of opponents as well. "Perfect balance" can exist only in a specific hypothetical campaign, and every campaign is different.

That's the point though. Neither feat is so much better than the other that it makes either choice obvious. Power attack is more useful sometimes, and Weapon Focus other times. They're pretty well balanced against each other.

Now, imagine that Weapon Focus gave you a bonus to hit equal to your BAB. Are these now balanced options? Of course not. Weapon Focus is now way too good and everyone would take it given the chance. Double my attack bonus? Yes please.

This is the whole point of the "feat tax" arguments. Whether or not those arguments are valid in the specific is up to the specific issue, but, at the root of them, that's the argument - a given option is so good that it becomes the default option.

And that's why game balance is important. Lack of game balance restricts choice. It makes one choice the obvious default.

And, as far as the Tier argument goes, I'd suggest you go back and actually read them. They are not talking about twinked out characters for the most part. They're talking about pretty baseline classes. The idea that one class is considerably stronger than another class isn't really a debate is it?

 

[billd91]

That's the point though. Neither feat is so much better than the other that it makes either choice obvious. Power attack is more useful sometimes, and Weapon Focus other times. They're pretty well balanced against each other.

Now, imagine that Weapon Focus gave you a bonus to hit equal to your BAB. Are these now balanced options? Of course not. Weapon Focus is now way too good and everyone would take it given the chance. Double my attack bonus? Yes please.

This is the whole point of the "feat tax" arguments. Whether or not those arguments are valid in the specific is up to the specific issue, but, at the root of them, that's the argument - a given option is so good that it becomes the default option.

And that's why game balance is important. Lack of game balance restricts choice. It makes one choice the obvious default.

And, as far as the Tier argument goes, I'd suggest you go back and actually read them. They are not talking about twinked out characters for the most part. They're talking about pretty baseline classes. The idea that one class is considerably stronger than another class isn't really a debate is it?

I would never say that a game should avoid dominating strategies... Unless there's a good reason for them such as genre emulation or verisimilitude. Some armors, for example, simply should be better than others for most purposes. Long swords should be more ubiquitous than two-handers or kopeshes. Wizards should be able to wield some reality warping power and should be one of the classes you turn to if you want that kind of ability.

But I have yet to see considerations of dominating strategies be a major factor in the classes players choose to play. I still see people primarily choose their class's on concept rather than overall power or tier. I think that particular choice is relatively resistant to issues of dominance, in part, because players prefer certain modes of play. Lots of martial character players happen to like whipping out multiple attacks, rolling up crits, counting up lots of damage without having to bother with planning out spells. And so on.

 

[Imaro]

I would never say that a game should avoid dominating strategies... Unless there's a good reason for them such as genre emulation or verisimilitude. Some armors, for example, simply should be better than others for most purposes. Long swords should be more ubiquitous than two-handers or kopeshes. Wizards should be able to wield some reality warping power and should be one of the classes you turn to if you want that kind of ability.

But I have yet to see considerations of dominating strategies be a major factor in the classes players choose to play. I still see people primarily choose their class's on concept rather than overall power or tier. I think that particular choice is relatively resistant to issues of dominance, in part, because players prefer certain modes of play. Lots of martial character players happen to like whipping out multiple attacks, rolling up crits, counting up lots of damage without having to bother with planning out spells. And so on.

Couldn't XP you but this has been my experience with the majority of players who aren't hardcore (which I would wager are probably the majority).

 

[sheadunne]

But I have yet to see considerations of dominating strategies be a major factor in the classes players choose to play. I still see people primarily choose their class's on concept rather than overall power or tier. I think that particular choice is relatively resistant to issues of dominance, in part, because players prefer certain modes of play. Lots of martial character players happen to like whipping out multiple attacks, rolling up crits, counting up lots of damage without having to bother with planning out spells. And so on.

I agree. Players tend to choose based on concept. The issues comes when the fighter doesn't get to fight the creatures the DM laid in front of them because the wizard has altered the narrative. He's either changed the battlefield, nerfed the bad guys, killed the enemies, or summoned a horde. The martial character is now fighting the battle the wizard wants him to fight, and often times it's either not a challenge anymore or not the fight he wants to fight.

Perhaps you don't experience that, but I know I've been yelled at plenty of times for making the challenges all but pointless to fight when I'm playing a caster. Now the martial player is getting frustrated that his cool concept is pretty much pointless because he has zero narrative control over the encounter. The tons of damage he can dish out aren't necessary because the monster drops easily or is paralyzed or is trapped behind a wall or is slowed or is already dead. His fun is nerfed by my fun.

Don't get me wrong, I love wizards and clerics (not so much druids but that's for flavor reasons). They're an essential part of my D&D experience. I want them to continue to have the narrative control they've always had. I would just like the martial characters to get some of that goodness in a way that doesn't make them more difficult to play because I've known plenty of players who enjoy the simplicity of the martial class.

My question is how do you balance the narrative and keep the fighter simple and the wizard interesting? I certainly don't feel 4e achieved that for me in their take on it, but would love 5e to give it a go.

 

[Ahnehnois]

My question is how do you balance the narrative and keep the fighter simple and the wizard interesting? I certainly don't feel 4e achieved that for me in their take on it, but would love 5e to give it a go.

One solution is metagame mechanics. Not 4e-style though; that defeats the point. Instead, a separate mechanical system that is the same for everyone. Something in the direction of action points, but farther in that direction, perhaps. A common concept in other rpgs, and something that is modular and easily ignored if you don't like it. Personally, I like the Cortex system games and their plot points. When the DM screws your character (or when you just advace normally), he gives you points. When you want something good to happen, you spend points. Still pretty simple, and works outside of character abilities so there's no plausibility question.

PF's mythic rules might give us some ideas. I don't think the final is released yet.

Another solution is more in-depth health rules. If there are more ways to be hurt and being hurt is more meaningful, there is more design space to differentiate the martial classes from the others based on toughness. And, certainly, resilience is something that people expect of warriors, wussiness is something people expect from wizards, and having the wizard be easily injured takes away his influence when he is.

And of course, one venue that definitely needs to be looked at is costs and drawbacks for magic. Trying to make nonmagical abilities able to do things just as good as magical abilities is not the way to go. But there's no reason that magic has to be reliable and limitless.

 

[billd91]

My question is how do you balance the narrative and keep the fighter simple and the wizard interesting? I certainly don't feel 4e achieved that for me in their take on it, but would love 5e to give it a go.

I think where the fighter is concerned, there's definite room for improvement and resources for non-adventuring campaign activities like Paizo's Ultimate Campaign can help. I think characters viewed as weak could gain the Leadership feat as a bonus feat, maybe even a slightly improved version if they also establish a base of operations. That can reflect the wider contacts and followers they get while their spellcasting counterparts maintain their magical powers and pursue those activities. It makes sense that relatively mundane classes would attract more hangers-on, they're easier for the hoi polloi to identify with.

The game system could also include more social interaction and narrative orbackground resources feats. Set their pre-reqs to be friendlier to the martial or mundane classes. Fighters, with a lot of feat capacity, would pick them up easier than anyone else.

Also, the fighter should have 4 skill points and a broader skill list to reflect the wide variety of fighting man archetypes.