D&D 5E Final playtest packet due in mid September.

[Ahnehnois]

Every point that I made in that post still stands. The designer noting that the game is "loosely balanced" in a FAQ is a far, far cry from your "The designers there pretty explicitly stated that they approached class balance in vague terms and that it wasn't the be all end all of design." And that isn't splitting hairs.

Yes. Yes it is. "Loose" and "vague" are pretty much synonymous in these usage, and the former is what I was trying to remember when I posted the other.

This last point here is not going to work out as support for your argument. In fact, you couldn't have possibly picked a worse sports league to display your point. Quite literally everything the NFL does is to achieve parity and competitive balance

Depends on what kind of balance you're talking about though. Some players are clearly more favored than others. Some play styles have been favored by rule changes. And some teams have been favored or disfavored by the league. As I recall, my home team was punished for not breaking the rules, in the name of restoring balance. Never mind how inconsistently they handle cheating. So, not really.

But in any case, the point was that the rules aren't made to balance one possible instance of the game (analagous to balancing specifically for published adventure or for someone's home game). The balance is theoretical and not exhaustive.

 

[Ahnehnois]

In the model I take you to be putting forward, success with a bard in the game is incrementally more difficult than success with a barbarian in the game. Also, a level N+1 bard is incrementally more likely to be successful in the game than a level N bard. Suppose, for the sake of argument, that the two increments are equal - so a level N+1 bard has about the same prospects of success as a level N barbarian. What's the objection to now rewriting the bard ability-by-level charts, reweighting the bard hit die, etc so that a revised level N bard has the same prospects of success as a leven N babarian?

Yes. I don't think it was a good idea, and like some other aspects of 3e, I think the best part of it is that it failed. It's certainly not the approach I take when designing new classes or rewriting old ones. There are a variety of general principles that I use to build a class, some of which probably do serve this end, but I don't put a lot of stock into comparing one class directly to another.

But that is different from suggesting that a druid is, or should be, incrementally weaker than (say) a cleric. The player of druid, by imposing his/her will on the game via situations involving nature and natural forces, should (in my view) be comparable in effectiveness to any other player. I just happen, in my game, not to provide so many of those sorts of situations.

Indeed these are separate issues that run the risk of being conflated. However, given the infinite variability of situations, I don't see how achieving a guarantee of equivalent effectiveness in play can be achieved, even if one can achieve it in a purely theoretical construct.

 

[Ahnehnois]

This assumes the advantages of being big outweigh the advantages of being small. They don't have to. The big guy can have advantages which carry the day about half the time, and the small one can have advantages that result in him winning the other half.

Or not. I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that the advantages of being big are greater than the advantages of being small in this context. I don't know a lot of dwarfs (in real world terms; little people) who made it as soldiers. Even with guns.

I would suggest a larger party creates a greater bias towards multi-target buffs. No difference from incentivizing same. If I am biased in favour of bards, I will tend to incentivizing players to run them. If I am biased against them, I will tend to disincentivize them. The smaller party can only be an expression of your bias if you contribute to that smaller size (and, of course, your reasons for a desired group size may include numerous non-Bard related biases or reasons).

Again, I don't know what you're doing with the b-word here. As you point out, the size of my group is not something we chose because we wanted to screw over support characters. Nor do I think "how can I disincentivize bards" when planning a game. Because of the nature of the game, any given game will always favor some character choices over others. Perfectly natural. Not bias.

Absolutely. So Graak the 8 INT 6 CHA Barbarian with no social skills is unlikely to impress anyone with his knowledge of strategy and tactics (absent an investment in that type of knowledge), while Slick, the 20 CHA con artist with +18 Bluff might well trick the Duke into believing he is a wise and experienced tactition - at least until someone with actual skill and some credibility assesses his choices (or the army is dead, but then it's too late).

Conversely, Haldamar the 14 Wis 16 Cha barbarian will impress the noble by bragging of his achievements and displaying his martial skill, while Thoofus, the kender who got caught too many times as a thief and is trying to reinvent himself as a performer, is likely to draw scorn and nothing else. What was your point?

You said maybe more randomness is desirable. I provided a list of items which could be randomized. How many, and which, do you think would make for a better game?

How about some but not all? I suspect the list of which is best varies by individual game. I know 3e did present systems for randomly determining what you get when you gain a level somewhere.

Which would be a reason to assess a small fighter based on his own advantages and drawbacks, not force him to try to match the large fighter. Each plays to their own strengths, and there is no reason they cannot be equally viable in the game.

There's also no reason why they have to be equally viable.

No, I mean if he got all those unique abilities, but in a manner which did not allow him to use them to have any real impact on the game. Perhaps because his "blink" is treated more as a Dimension Door, so he is stunned for a round after its use. We allowed the character, but rendered it much less viable than the other characters in the group. He should be OK with that, since he chose that specific type of character, assuming being balanced against the other characters is not really an issue.

I don't know why he'd be okay with that. If he chose a character with one set of capabilities, and then I reduced them to the point of being unable to act usefully for no reason, I don't see the positive there. What the other characters are or are not doing doesn't really play into it that much.

Similarly, if a player played a bard and couldn't create useful music effects, I imagine he'd be a little peeved. On the other hand, if he created said bard and was able to chuck off a variety of music effects, spells, and skills to their full effect, but at the end of the game didn't have as much influence as a, say, barbarian, I imagine he'd be fine with it.

As it is, I not infrequently will end a game with a set of outcomes where one character becomes a deity after having dominated the game and achieved great things, another settles down to a quiet life in the wilderness after having been party to great things, and another is dead after having tried to do great things and failed. The players are fine with that, as long as those journeys feel earned.

 

[pemerton]

I don't think it was a good idea, and like some other aspects of 3e, I think the best part of it is that it failed. It's certainly not the approach I take when designing new classes or rewriting old ones. There are a variety of general principles that I use to build a class, some of which probably do serve this end, but I don't put a lot of stock into comparing one class directly to another.

On what basis, then, do you allocate class abilities across levels?

 

[Ahnehnois]

On what basis, then, do you allocate class abilities across levels?

A few of my main principles:
*I don't do dead levels. Dead levels suck.
*To avoid dead levels, I try to approach classes with rhythmicity; bonuses gained every three levels, feats gained every four. Class abilities that are related might update every six levels. Some consistent number.
*I typically design the level 1 and level 20 abilities first, and then try to parse everything as evenly as possible to form a progression. The level 1 abilities can be quite powerful but I give the character whatever it needs to be some kind of meaningful expression of the class concept from day 1. The level 20 capstone is typically a "limit-breaker" that allows characters to do things that aren't usually allowed (reroll dice, change the limits for actions in a round, etc.), combined with several other arbitrary but powerful perks.
*I also tend to load a little extra ability at level 2 to discourage one level dipping.

When deciding what ability goes at what level, I tend to look at the precedents, but I often go earlier than them, because I don't expect characters to reach high levels that often and I want the cool stuff to get used. In general, I'll pick abilities that already exist and copy them in, or I'll make new ones that resemble existing abilities.

Maybe then at this point I'll have some thought process with myself on "how powerful is this really?", but I'm still not doing a lot of math, and not doing a lot of 1 to 1 comparisons. All of which is to say, the balance aspect isn't completely irrelevant, but it's not the first thing I think about, and it's not the most important criterion when I judge how good of a job I did at the end. The most important thing to me is does the class live up to the premise? If it's a knight, can I look at it and see the honor, dignity, and skill? If it's a warlock, can I see the fiendish bargain's effects and get the sense of magic being dangerously unhinged? Etc., etc.

My approach to class design was largely developed in writing classes for the Psychic's Handbook. These were new creations, as the handbook has an interesting system but only one crappy class with no real abilities to support it. I then went back and applied the same principles to a couple of dozen published classes.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

Or not. I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that the advantages of being big are greater than the advantages of being small in this context. I don't know a lot of dwarfs (in real world terms; little people) who made it as soldiers. Even with guns.

First, real-world little people are disproportionate in their own body size and to the gear made for modern warfare. They are not a race of people that create weapons to defend themselves with. They are very dissimilar to halflings.

I don't think your assumptions (in this particular example) are unreasonable. But I also don't believe they are the only valid assumptions. For example, D&D has most always associated being able to strike a target with a melee weapon a function of Strength. It seems reasonable to me that Dexterity would be a better gauge of accuracy*, while Strength reflects the raw power when a character connects. Then, you could have the more accurate halfling doing less damage and the less accurate half-orc doing more when he connects. Two different approaches that provide parity without making the choices the same. This is what I was trying to get at.



*Even a racial ability for halflings that allowed them use of Dex to hit with melee weapons would put them on par with other races.

 

[Ahnehnois]

First, real-world little people are disproportionate in their own body size and to the gear made for modern warfare. They are not a race of people that create weapons to defend themselves with. They are very dissimilar to halflings.

That is true. However, I don't think that these things are the main reason smaller people don't make it in combat.

I don't think your assumptions (in this particular example) are unreasonable. But I also don't believe they are the only valid assumptions. For example, D&D has most always associated being able to strike a target with a melee weapon a function of Strength. It seems reasonable to me that Dexterity would be a better gauge of accuracy*, while Strength reflects the raw power when a character connects. Then, you could have the more accurate halfling doing less damage and the less accurate half-orc doing more when he connects. Two different approaches that provide parity without making the choices the same. This is what I was trying to get at.

All of that is true, but the rules also gloss over the relative mass of the combatants. A typical human male weighs 175 lbs, while a typical halfling male weighs 35 lbs. The momentum of a fist swung by one of those characters and hitting the other is very different, certainly more so than the rules would suggest, which give halflings only a -2 Str and -1 to damage dice, and allow them the same hp.

The rules also give the two characters the same reach, negating what would be a rather large disadvantage. They also generally don't consider vision, of which a small character's would likely be obstructed in many combat situations.

I'm sure that's not the end of it, but I think it's clear that there are a lot of very basic physical constraints here.

 

[N'raac]

Wrong keypunch - sorry

 

[N'raac]

Or not. I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that the advantages of being big are greater than the advantages of being small in this context. I don't know a lot of dwarfs (in real world terms; little people) who made it as soldiers. Even with guns.

First off, I don't think too many people get involved in a fantasy RPG to play out the real world. Realistic magic does pretty poorly ("Hey, Dragon, watch me pull a rabbit out of my hat!"). Realistically, infection would be a greater concern than combat damage.

The discussion of individuals who deviate from the racial norm vs a specific race which develops tools and techniques based on their own norms would alleviate a lot of equipment issues. How different would a jeep or a tank be designed if humans were 3' 2" on average, or if they typically stood 7 1/2 feet tall?

Wikipedia indicates Pygmies average 4' 11". The Nilotic peoples of Sudan such as the Shilluk and Dinka have been described as some of the tallest in the world. Dinka Ruweng males investigated by Roberts in 1953–54 were on average 1.813 m tall, and Shilluk males averaged 1.826 m. The Nilotic people are characterized as having long legs, narrow bodies and short trunks, an adaptation to hot weather. However, male Dinka and Shilluk refugees measured in 1995 in Southwestern Ethiopia were on average only 1.764 m and 1.726 m tall, respectively. In Tibet, the khampas are known for their great height. Khampa males are on average 180 cm tall (5' 10). Seeing famed warriors in there?

Average heights have increased 4" over the last 100 years (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=why-are-we-getting-taller), but I don't believe that has changed much.

Wikipedia also indicates "In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, Europeans in North America were far taller than those in Europe and were the tallest in the world. The original indigenous population of Plains Native Americans was also among the tallest populations of the world at the time. Several nations, including many nations in Europe, have now surpassed the US, particularly the Netherlands, and the Scandinavian nations. Now, the average height of White Americans is about the same as for the Europeans they are descended from." So, did the Plains Indians enjoy a huge advantage over the European settlers?

From the same source, "At the extreme end, being excessively tall can cause various medical problems, including cardiovascular problems, because of the increased load on the heart to supply the body with blood, and problems resulting from the increased time it takes the brain to communicate with the extremities. For example, Robert Wadlow, the tallest man known to verifiable history, developed trouble walking as his height increased throughout his life. In many of the pictures of the later portion of his life, Wadlow can be seen gripping something for support. Late in his life, although he died at age 22, he had to wear braces on his legs and walk with a cane; and he died after developing an infection in his legs because he was unable to feel the irritation and cutting caused by his leg braces. " Does that sound like the recipe for a great warrior? Cardio seems pretty crucial to sustained combat.

Enough Wikipedia.

Conversely, Haldamar the 14 Wis 16 Cha barbarian will impress the noble by bragging of his achievements and displaying his martial skill, while Thoofus, the kender who got caught too many times as a thief and is trying to reinvent himself as a performer, is likely to draw scorn and nothing else. What was your point?

I would suggest that, if Thoofus has a 20 CHA and 10 ranks in diplomacy, but you decide he "is likely to draw scorn and nothing else", then you have invalidated the character. He has invested in the ability to be persuasive, and you are simply ignoring those mechanics. If the character is intended and expected to "draw scorn and nothing else", that should be reflected in poor social skills. Similarly, Haldamar has a 16 CHA, which puts him way beyond Graak, the 6 CHA Barbarian (a +5 advantage). That should mean he's much better in social situations than Graak. With no ranks in diplomacy, he still falls way behind Thoofus - his +3 does not compare to Thoofus' +15.

Now, if the question is one directly related to martial prowess, and Haldamar has demonstrated that prowess, I certainly see room for a bonus. Given the bonus for having "the perfect tool" is +2, I would suggest that martial prowess bonus should be limited to the same +2, not +15 so Haldamar overshadows Thoofus. If Haldamar wanted to be really persuasive, he should have also invested ranks in diplomacy. If he also has 10 ranks of diplomacy (meaning 20 skill points - that's not a class skill for Barbarians, and a significant investment), his martial prowess offsets Thoofus' charisma advantage and they're even.

Of course, a better question is why, assuming they are teammates, Thoofus would not be using his persuasive skills to build up Haldamar to maximize the likelihood the team gets the desired answer from the Duke. If they oppose one another, I suspect Thoofus would subtly denigrate Haldamar in the eyes of the Duke, perhaps highlighting the fact that those past accomplishments were by force of Haldamar's arms, not his strategic genius. The fact that (in my more detailed analysis) Thoofus has 10 ranks in diplomacy and a +5 CHA bonus means he's pretty skilled at pushing his agenda over others, and would typically succeed when opposed by a +5 check (16 CHA +2 for perfect tools, but no ranks in diplomacy). Of course, Haldamar might beat Thoofus' roll by 10 (making them even) or more (meaning Thoofus' honeyed words are not sufficient, and Haldamar's warrior reputation wins out), but the mechanics say this is not very likely. Would you provide Haldamar with a +12 diplomacy bonus (making him Thoofus' equal he already got +2 in my example), a higher bonus (so he's better), or a lower bonus (advantage stays with Thoofus) due to his martial prowess?

Looked at another way, with Thoofus having 10 ranks of diplomacy, let's say they're L7. Thoofus probably has a BAB of +5 to Haldamar's +7, and Haldamar likely has a STR advantage. Thoofus is small (probably not a Kender, given that CHA, so I changed the situation there, if nowhere else - why is a CHA penalized race choosing to be a Bard, or a diplomat, again?), so let's give him a Rapier with 1d4 damage, and an overall melee attack bonus of +9 (BAB +5 Size +1 DEX +3 from Weapon Finesse) and no damage bonus, so 1d4. Let's give Haldamar a bonus of + (BAB +7 + 4 STR - 2 Power Attack) and a Greataxe (1d12 + 4 STR + 2 2 handed +2 Power Attack), so he averages 14.5 damage, 12 points more than Thoofus (and gets a second attack). Are you prepared to allow Thoofus to gain a "great combat role playing bonus" to provide him +12 damage, if you are prepared to offer Haldamar a +12 Diplomacy Bonus to push him into equality with Thoofus in his area of expertise? Let's assume Thoofus is studied in anatomy, so he should get this huge damage bonus based on his background, just like Haldamar's martial background is used to support a big diplomacy bonus.

I suspect a +12 damage bonus won't be offered by any GM. For myself, I would suggest Thoofus take some Rogue levels if he wants to get bonus damage for his anatomical knowledge. I would further suggest a willingness to give the martial character a huge diplomacy bonus just for being "a martial character", or for having a high BAB, is an indication of bias towards martial characters - they are getting something for nothing.

How about some but not all? I suspect the list of which is best varies by individual game. I know 3e did present systems for randomly determining what you get when you gain a level somewhere.

Sure, my expectation would be some but not all. Right now, "some but not all" is random rolls to hit and succeed with skills, saves, etc. (and a d20 is pretty swingy in that regard), random rolls for hp (but with higher averages for characters expected to have more hp - we could just give all classes the same dice, maybe d8 for medium characters and d6 for small characters), and a mix between randomly rolled and point purchased stats, with "roll for each stat" being pretty rare (can't remember the last post I've seen where there was no choice) compared to "organize them as you wish". Some, but not all, random character generation. Your comment earlier was that it is, perhaps, time to make it more random, so my question is how much more random, and where. Whatever your answer, I suspect you will have detractors (possibly on both the "less" and "more" random camps).

There's also no reason why they have to be equally viable.

I think this is simply a difference of opinion which we are not going to resolve. The points for structuring the game so characters will be more or less equal at each level have been stated repeatedly already. I am uncertain what the argument against such a structure are. I think most of the arguments have been "it can work either way". So, if it can work either way for some gamers, and for others a balance such that all character options presented in the rules are more or less balanced at each level is important, I suggest that the latter is the best choice. Those desiring balance are satisfied, and those who don't think balance is overly important but can take it or leave it should be OK, since they could take it or leave it. I haven't seen any arguments that "balance is bad" (and if you want less balance, then let's implement all those random rolls, starting with a 1d20 roll, or a broader range, to determine the level your brand new character starts at).

I don't know why he'd be okay with that. If he chose a character with one set of capabilities, and then I reduced them to the point of being unable to act usefully for no reason, I don't see the positive there. What the other characters are or are not doing doesn't really play into it that much.

But you are OK with saying "Thoofus, tough luck for your +15 Diplomacy roll, I'm giving the nod to Haldamar's +3 because HE is a warrior, so that's worth at least a free +17 bonus". Let's compare that to the Blink ability and allow the Rogue to tumble the same distance with a bonus so large it may as well be automatic success, awarded not for character resources invested, but because "he's a nimble roguish acrobat, so of course he can do that". And we'll also let martial characters move the same distance and attract no attacks of opportunity because, after all, they are skilled warriors and know how to move in combat.

I don't see the positive in denying the character the ability to contribute to success in a unique way that is different from the way other characters contribute, but comparable in the value of those contributions. But I don't see why one should have to be a tauric Halfling blink dog to get this benefit. I think a small, dextrous fighter, a Bard, or any other race/class combination (including a half orc barbarian) should have the ability to contribute to success in a unique way that is different from the way other characters contribute, but comparable in value. You are the one who has been arguing that this should not be a design goal, or at least not a priority goal, for the past [how many? scared to look!] pages.

As it is, I not infrequently will end a game with a set of outcomes where one character becomes a deity after having dominated the game and achieved great things, another settles down to a quiet life in the wilderness after having been party to great things, and another is dead after having tried to do great things and failed. The players are fine with that, as long as those journeys feel earned.

I suspect that you do not commence the game with you (and all the players) looking at three fresh young first level characters, and all four of you can point to the one which will clearly dominate the game and achieved great things over the whole campaign, the one who will retire to a quiet life after being a party to the success of the first, and the one who is clearly doomed to die in the attempt. It is the balance between the characters' abilities (racial, class, etc.) which provides (or at least should, in my view, provide) them all an equal opportunity to be the character who ascends, and not the casualty along the way.

 

[N'raac]

All of that is true, but the rules also gloss over the relative mass of the combatants. A typical human male weighs 175 lbs, while a typical halfling male weighs 35 lbs. The momentum of a fist swung by one of those characters and hitting the other is very different, certainly more so than the rules would suggest, which give halflings only a -2 Str and -1 to damage dice, and allow them the same hp.

The rules also give the two characters the same reach, negating what would be a rather large disadvantage. They also generally don't consider vision, of which a small character's would likely be obstructed in many combat situations.

I'm sure that's not the end of it, but I think it's clear that there are a lot of very basic physical constraints here.

So, basically, we're already glossing over realism in the interest of play balance (and I shudder to think of a "realistic" tauric blink dog halfling...). With that in mind, why would we not take the further steps required to achieve that balance?

In the source material, I don't see the advantage of larger size - be it mass, momentum, reach, the cube/square law, or any other basic physical constraint, resulting in one character being clearly superior. Certainly the Hobbits were smaller and weaker than their companions, but they were still quite competitive, especially once they had gained some experience (ie approached the level of their companions, rather than starting as neophyte L1 rookies). Despite Aragorn and Legolas' clear advantage in height, Gimli seemed quite competent as a warrior, certainly an equal to these much larger warriors, didn't they? To me, the game should strive to maximize its ability to emulate the source material - in that source material, a broad array of very different characters, of all shapes, sizes and professions, make pretty equally compelling and successful contributions to the success of themselves, or their team, so that's what I want to see in the game.