Fighters vs. Spellcasters (a case for fighters.)

[Ahnehnois]

Have you lived under a rock with no internet for the past few years?

I imagine he's been playing D&D for the past few years.

Lol at the self-contradiction.
Are my wishes somehow less important than yours? Not to mention that I'm not alone on that.

Where would you get that idea? You said they weren't balanced. They are. That's fact, and has nothing to do with your or my opinion. It simply means that they were written by game designers who stated they went through some sort of process to balance them.

Whether either of us is happy with the results is their own personal opinion.

And ToB, Rage Powers, Grit have "profound flaws"? What?

A discrete per-time use limitation. That's pretty profound. I've detailed problems with that elsewhere at length.
When we're talking about magic, it's a bad mechanical element, but one that can at least be justified. When we're talking about not magic, those limitations can no longer be explained in in-game terms and are no longer appropriate.

Another profound flaw is that they're all or nothing. You either have the power/stance/grit feat or you don't. Again, that's a very basic flaw, and a contradiction to the basic nature of the d20 system (d20+DC vs modifiers).

So then your assumption is that it is catered to people who not only can, but also don't mind fixing the game's flaws?

Fixing, or working with them in some way.

I find what you are saying to be very elitist. You're such a good DM, having no problems with your games. But when someone has trouble with the game's balance? Well, tough cookies, h should stop being such an inept DM!

Really irrelevant. I had the same philosophy when I was a beginner. And I still play with beginners on occasion. A lack of skill on the part of the operators does not abrogate the impetus to acquire that skill. It isn't elitist to suggest that if you want to run a game well, you need to be good at running that game. It's self-evident.

Sure, when the goal is to win. In D&D the goal is to have fun.

I don't see what that has to do with whether skill is an essential part of the gameplay experience or not.

That's also a very bizarre statement in this context. The idea of comparing the classes and trying to create some kind of equivalency is predicated on the notion that they are in direct competition. Your above statements essentially boil down to you thinking that a druid "wins" when compared to a fighter in melee. If winning is irrelevant and the goal is fun, your whole philosophy about balance becomes irrelevant. If we're just having fun, who cares if one character can do things another character can't?

 

[Wicht]

Have you lived under a rock with no internet for the past few years?

Regardless of my place of residence for the past few years, assertion still does not equal proof. And many people all making the same assertion does not equal proof either. For game play balance I have to rely on my experience, and in my experience I have never had a problem with fighters, nor with wizards taking over the game. I've never had problems with clerics that make everyone else obsolete. It just does not happen.

Wizards can do things fighters cannot do, there is no question about that. But clerics can do things wizards can't do. I'm fine with that. The fighter has no particular magical prowess. I'm fine with that too. What the fighter does have is good armor class, good BAB, the ability to dish out a lot of damage round after round after round after round.

Someone used a baseball analogy before that is apt. The Wizard is a homerun hitter. Which is nice and flashy and all and it certainly helps win games, but a homerun hitter also strikes out a lot, and in my experience Wizards sometimes get that awesome moment and sometimes the monster makes a save and the spell is lost. Sometimes the wizard is able to have just the right spell at just the right time, but about 2 out of every 3 games, the wizard says, "Argh, I prepared the wrong spell."

The Cleric is a good defensive player and a decent clutch hitter. He routinely makes the plays that keep the team in the game. He doesn't have as many homeruns, but sometimes he is able to have that moment where he has just the right spell to really shine, but about half the time, when the moment comes, he says "argh, I have to wait to be able to deal with that."

The fighter sometimes gets a big hit, though not as often as the other two, but what he does is provide consistency. He provides the singles and doubles that guarantee the homerun the wizard might hit not only scores but scores big. When the wizard has nothing, the fighter is still in the game, getting the hits. Winning teams do not rely on homerun hitters to win the division, they rely on the guys that provide consistency night after night. That's the fighter for you, unappreciated by those that prefer big hits, but in my games the fighter very rarely has a bad night.

Moreover, to another point just made, if the game is not about winning then the whole argument is ridiculous. At my table when the wizard pulls off the flashy home-run effect, everyone feels uplifted because that's one for the team. When the cleric manages to buff themselves (or, more often the case at our table) everyone else, the whole table appreciates the contribution because the team is doing better. And when the fighter (fighter/barbarian in our most recent campaign) scores hit after hit after hit, doing consistent damage (and lots of it), nobody complains about them being one hit wonders because those hits are helping the team stay alive and put the opponents in the ground.

 

[Wicht]

But when someone has trouble with the game's balance? Well, tough cookies, he should stop being such an inept DM!

I wouldn't word it quite like that.

I will admit that it is possible that 30 or so years of experience with the game factors into my lack of difficulty with the problems others claim to be having. Or it could be table style. But regardless, the fact that it is not a problem at some tables should encourage those who have the problem to be humble enough to ask if there is something they are doing wrong, or some skill they need to learn to alleviate the difficulty.

To use another game as an analogy, I was always told that Monopoly took forever to play, 6-8 hours for some games and that games would just drag on and on. Indeed some of my formative experiences with Monopoly suggested this was a real problem. As a kid I didn't mind the long games, but as I got older I soured a little on the play experience. Then I come to find out, the whole problem has to do, not with the game, but with a house-rule a large number of people accept as part of the game, but which is not actually in the rules. Turns out if you eliminate this house rule and follow the actual rules, Monopoly is only a 2 hour game. Still today, I talk to people who, because they play the game not actually according to how it was designed, think Monopoly is a game that last hours and hours and hours. Indeed, the majority of people I talk to are convinced Monopoly is one of the longest games out there. But assertion does not equal proof and sometimes its possible that, yes indeed, most people just play the game wrong.

Now, I am not saying most people play RPGs wrong. If you are having fun, then its all good. But if there is a perceived problem, but there is certain subset of players who say the problem does not exist for them, then it is possible that those who have the problem are doing something in a manner different from the other group and there is an equally valid possibility that learning a certain set of skills, or approaching the game from a slightly different angle might alleviate the problem without resorting to changing the whole game.

 

[ImperatorK]

I imagine he's been playing D&D for the past few years.

Then he should know that I'm not making assertions. There's more than enough proof on the internet.

They are. That's fact

Years of theoretical and practical analysis consolidated by thousand of gamers around the world disagree with you. And existence of 4ed implies that WotC kinda does too.

Whether either of us is happy with the results is their own personal opinion.

Which WotC apparently cares about, otherwise they wouldn't made 4ed the way it is (more balanced [but in the process also kinda boring and bland]).

When we're talking about magic, it's a bad mechanical element, but one that can at least be justified. When we're talking about not magic, those limitations can no longer be explained in in-game terms and are no longer appropriate.

Magic can be justified, but non-magic can't. Why exactly? That's a fluff thing, not system thing.

Fixing, or working with them in some way.

Huh. You didn't deny that there is a flaw.
Wouldn't it be better if there was no flaw, rather than us wasting time on fixing it yourself?

Really irrelevant. I had the same philosophy when I was a beginner. And I still play with beginners on occasion. A lack of skill on the part of the operators does not abrogate the impetus to acquire that skill. It isn't elitist to suggest that if you want to run a game well, you need to be good at running that game. It's self-evident.

Except the fault doesn't lie in my ineptness, but in flaws inherent in the game.

I don't see what that has to do with whether skill is an essential part of the gameplay experience or not.

If I'm not having fun in a game because I'm simply not good enough at it, then that's on me. If I want to have fun I'm gonna need to get better.
If OTOH I'm not having fun because of the game's flaws, then it's on the game. I think it's pretty straightforward and selfexplanatory.

That's also a very bizarre statement in this context. The idea of comparing the classes and trying to create some kind of equivalency is predicated on the notion that they are in direct competition.

Um, no. Sometimes your opponents have class levels, so maybe there's something to it, but the need for balance between classes isn't due to some PvP matches. Not in the slightest.

Your above statements essentially boil down to you thinking that a druid "wins" when compared to a fighter in melee.

Nah, that's just you putting words in my mouth.

If winning is irrelevant and the goal is fun, your whole philosophy about balance becomes irrelevant. If we're just having fun, who cares if one character can do things another character can't?

In a perfect world everyone is happy and has fun with what they've got. Unfortunately the world isn't perfect.
When I'm playing a Fighter whose entire shtick is to be good (or even the best) at fighting and the Druid's animal companion (which is just one class feature) or the Druid in wildshape is outdoing me, on top of being able to do all the other things he can do (with his spells, because MAGIC), then that kinda puts a damper on my fun, because it's not fun feeling useless or inferior. You can even call it jealousy if you want. Either way I'm having less (or no) fun.

Regardless of my place of residence for the past few years, assertion still does not equal proof.

Ignorance of proof does not equal absence of proof. Read up on the subject and then get back to me.

And many people all making the same assertion does not equal proof either. For game play balance I have to rely on my experience, and in my experience I have never had a problem with fighters, nor with wizards taking over the game. I've never had problems with clerics that make everyone else obsolete. It just does not happen.

So your experience trumps the collective experience of thousands of people? Wow.

Now, I am not saying most people play RPGs wrong. If you are having fun, then its all good. But if there is a perceived problem, but there is certain subset of players who say the problem does not exist for them, then it is possible that those who have the problem are doing something in a manner different from the other group and there is an equally valid possibility that learning a certain set of skills, or approaching the game from a slightly different angle might alleviate the problem without resorting to changing the whole game.

Here's the things that I don't get, tho.
Firstly - what makes you so sure that the problem lies on our part or that there is no problem? A lot of people see problems. What. Are we (people that complain about the balance) all imagining things or doing something wrong? Or maybe, just maybe, it's you who simply don't see?
Secondly - what' wrong with changing the whole game? Why are you so opposed to that? It changes nothing for people who have no problems, but helps people who do.

 

[Wicht]

So your experience trumps the collective experience of thousands of people? Wow.

Yes, apparently it does. cf. Monopoly analogy.

There only needs to be one exception to show that a thing is not universal. If a particular problem does not exist for one person, but it does for another, then it is plausible, and sometimes probable that one person is doing it right and another is doing it wrong. Often times the person with the problem is the one doing it wrong. Just because a majority of people might be doing it wrong does not mean that the majority is right. It might simply mean that a lot of people could do better if they were willing to change a few things or learn a certain set of skills.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Then he should know that I'm not making assertions. There's more than enough proof on the internet.

[sarcasm]Really? Proof on the internet? Case closed![/sarcasm]

Years of theoretical and practical analysis consolidated by thousand of gamers around the world disagree with you. And existence of 4ed implies that WotC kinda does too.

I'm not aware of any consolidated analyses to this effect. I am aware of basic fallacies in the ones that I've read. And the existence of 4e merely proves that WotC is capable of making mistakes.

I'm also aware of a multitude of game designers, playtesters, and players who obviously disagree, based on their behavior.

Magic can be justified, but non-magic can't. Why exactly?

Magic can be limited on a per-time basis because its source is not known, and operates according to mystical and arbitrary rules. Because it's not real, and by definition is disparate from reality. Everything else comes from some known source, and operates according to rules that are, to some extent, based on reality. So they're not the same.

Huh. You didn't deny that there is a flaw. Wouldn't it be better if there was no flaw, rather than you wasting time on fixing it yourself?

Sure. However, in the absence of some ideal game without flaws, I prefer to use the available game with the fewest flaws. I would prefer it if those flaws were fixed. Adding or creating new flaws, not so good.

As I've said before, show me a new age 3e with its flaws fixed, and I'm on board.

Except the fault doesn't lie in my ineptness, but in flaws inherent in the game.
...
If I'm not having fun in a game because I'm simply not good enough at it, then that's on me. If I want to have fun I'm gonna need to get better.
If OTOH I'm not having fun because of the game's flaws, then it's on the game. I think it's pretty obvious.

Even if that's true, it doesn't justify making the game worse overall to patch it for your preferences.

Um, no. Sometimes your opponents have class levels, so maybe there's something to it, but the need for balance between classes isn't due to some PvP matches. Not in the slightest.

If there were such a need, I think it would be; I'm not seeing any other rationale. Since there is no such "need", its hypothetical predicates are irrelevant.

When I'm playing a Fighter whose entire shtick is to be good (or even the best) at fighting and the Druid's animal companion (which is just one class feature) or the Druid in wildshape is outdoing me, on top of being able to do all the other things he can do, then that kinda puts a damper on my fun, because it's not fun feeling useless or inferior.

That might be bad. However, the actual rules do not make animal companions or druids in wild shape superior to or competitive with fighters of equal levels, so that's more of a hypothetical.

Even if it were the case, it would simply suggest that the designers felt that nature was a dominant force in the world and that nature worshippers should be powerful, and balanced the game accordingly. Your dissent would best be manifested by picking up another game whose philosophy more closely matched yours.

So your experience trumps the collective experience of thousands of people? Wow.

Your experience seems to trump the experience of the millions of people who have not attempted to publish fallacious proofs to this effect anonymously on internet messageboards.

 

[Wicht]

Here's the things that I don't get, tho.
Firstly - what makes you so sure that the problem lies on our part? What. Are we (people that complain about the balance) all imagining things?

Well, I don't have a problem with my game balance. Therefore yes, the problem lies on your part.

i am sure that you are not imagining things just as I am sure that some people play 8 hour games of Monopoly.

My lack of problems, however, does not prove that I must be somehow in the wrong. The problem simply does not exist for me and therefore it is not a universal problem. Therefore there must be a reason why some people experience the problem and some don't. There are a number of possible factors, but factors they are and they are adjustable so that the problem can be alleviated.

Secondly - what' wrong with changing the whole game? Why are you so opposed to that? It changes nothing for people who have no problems, but helps people who do.

Well, changing the game most certainly changes things for people who have no problems. It changes the game and the game experience. I like my game experience for the most part. Why would I want to change it, especially when the suggested fixes are all mostly undesirable for me? I like fighters the way they are in PF.

 

[pemerton]

If there is imbalance in your games and none in Ahnehnois' games, then I have to question how that happens, using the same set of rules. Either the unbalanced game reflects poor/inept GMing, or the balanced game reflects players not leveraging the rules. With some GM's claiming they are not experiencing a problem, and others reporting they are, one of the two must be true, and there doesn't seem an objective means of determining which is correct.

For game play balance I have to rely on my experience, and in my experience I have never had a problem with fighters, nor with wizards taking over the game. I've never had problems with clerics that make everyone else obsolete. It just does not happen.

<snip>

Moreover, to another point just made, if the game is not about winning then the whole argument is ridiculous.

We've just had pages and pages of discussion about playstyle differences, and how different mechanics have different implications within different playstyles, and then we have these two posts which proceed as if that discussion never happened, and there is only one way to play the game, and anyone who doesn't play that way is inept or being ridiculous.

That is a little frustrating.

A "balanced" game of 3E is achievable using some GM techniques - upthread I called them "storyteller" - but not others - the ones appropriate to "indie" or "wargaming" play. For some players - "wargame" or "indie" players - the mere fact that the game is not about "winning" doesn't make concern about imbalances ridiculous, because those players (i) are highly concerned with protagonism (ie actual presence of the PC in play at the table) and (ii) do not want storyteller-style GM devices to ensure that sort of "spotlight time" but rather want it to emerge naturally from the PC build + action resolution mechanics.

There is nothing inept about wargaming and indie groups who find 3E to suffer from balance problems. In my view, at least, it's not a game well-suited to their playstyles. (And I don't think it's a coincidence that Paizo has made its fortune selling APs.)

 

[pemerton]

we're seeing the DM challenge the Wizard on the narrative and not the encounter, which often comes across as "screwing the wizard." Technically the DM is simply challenging the wizard character on the same field of battle the wizard chose to engage him on.

This is the field of battle that [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] calls "Calvinball".

 

[Wicht]

We've just had pages and pages of discussion about playstyle differences, and how different mechanics have different implications within different playstyles, and then we have these two posts which proceed as if that discussion never happened, and there is only one way to play the game, and anyone who doesn't play that way is inept or being ridiculous.

I think I said I would not phrase it that way using the word "inept." I do think there is a possibility that the problem, however is not with the game itself, which does not, of itself contradict what you say after.

A "balanced" game of 3E is achievable using some GM techniques - upthread I called them "storyteller" - but not others - the ones appropriate to "indie" or "wargaming" play.

I disagree. I think that a balanced game is achievable by adherence to the rules. I think it is facilitated by techniques but that balance is inherent into the rules as written. It doesn't matter how many pages of contrary opinion there is, I still believe this.

For some players - "wargame" or "indie" players - the mere fact that the game is not about "winning" doesn't make concern about imbalances ridiculous, because those players (i) are highly concerned with protagonism (ie actual presence of the PC in play at the table) and (ii) do not want storyteller-style GM devices to ensure that sort of "spotlight time" but rather want it to emerge naturally from the PC build + action resolution mechanics.

There is nothing inept about wargaming and indie groups who find 3E to suffer from balance problems. In my view, at least, it's not a game well-suited to their playstyles. (And I don't think it's a coincidence that Paizo has made its fortune selling APs.)

Granted that some playstyles prefer PF over others, that does not mean the game is imbalanced. It merely means it is designed to deliver a certain experience and that those who want a Fiasco experience or a Mouseguard experience, or even a wargame experience are not going to like it as much. They should play the game they want instead.

I don't rely on storytelling style GM devices to give players a time in the spotlight. I allow their own choices, the elements of the game (and to some extent the adventure as written) and the fall of the dice to do this. At my table it emerges naturally using the rules as written. Therefore I must disagree with at least a part of your premise.