D&D 4E 4E balance: Does it extend to PvP?

[austinwulf]

Howdy,

I have been reading a bit regarding the fact that DnD is striving to make all classes ballanced, and I think that's great! (I remember well the crazy level progressions etc from 1st and 2nd)

But so far as I have read, that balance seems to only pertain to an adventuring party facing their adversaries. What happens when the party Rogue tries to steal the Party Fighter's coin purse...cause you know its going to happen...

Have these classes been tested at all vs. each other? Cause in the manhood measuring contests that pop-up (no pun intended) in DnD tend to be less "How many orcs have you killed" and more, "Oh yeah? Well my guy can kill your guy!"

Any experienced playtesters have any insight here?

 

[Ian O'Rourke]

Hmmm, slightly odd question, or maybe I'm slightly odd for finding odd

I suspect the answer is yes, but I also suspect it's not been top of the agenda. They'll be balanced against each other in one-on-one PvP but probably more because each class should not out shine another and each class should contribute to the team effort.

I'm not sure lots and lots of time will have been spent on specific PvP balancing, but some of it will come out of testing of other goals.

 

[mmaranda]

At Winter Fantasy Mike Mearls said that a table of 4-6 adventurers should have a very tough fight of an equal number of adventurers.

Take that for what it is worth.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Hmm. I have some doubts that this was one of their primary concerns.

I think a Striker with a good movement rate will probably have an easier time against a heavily armored, slower Defender. If a Controller isn't fast enough, he will probably have less change against a Defender.

I think they even stated in the context of monster roles that roles are not "balanced" in and on themselves. They are to work together, and then they will all shine.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

I sincerely hope not. The classes should be balanced for the primary goal of game play... playing as a team, against challenges. I think the last "pvp" pissing contast our group saw that ended in a death was about 10 years ago. I think maybe I was 10 when I saw someone do something as annoying and stupid as stealing another player's coin purse. Such players tend to be more trouble than they are worth.

Has there been anything concrete that when you fight, say, a human wizard, it will actually have levels of wizard, and not be created in a different fashion?

 

[Remathilis]

Sorry, 4th edition "as is" doesn't allow for PvP, due to the supposed noncompetitive team nature of the game. Your going to have to wait for the PvP splatbook that will have rules for running PvP-infused games, including rules for bounty-hunting, gladiatorial combat and wizard duels. Expect that this will be the home of the bounty-hunter paragon path, and the "Smite Party Thief" paladin at-will power.


(Yes, this is a giant WoW joke. No, I'm not serious)

 

[Andur]

I sincerely hope not. The classes should be balanced for the primary goal of game play... playing as a team, against challenges. I think the last "pvp" pissing contast our group saw that ended in a death was about 10 years ago. I think maybe I was 10 when I saw someone do something as annoying and stupid as stealing another player's coin purse. Such players tend to be more trouble than they are worth.

Has there been anything concrete that when you fight, say, a human wizard, it will actually have levels of wizard, and not be created in a different fashion?

Not sure I understand your point. If a DM will not allow violent (or even non-violent) intraparty interaction, that is the DM (and party's) choice. However, using the same mechanics to make a PC to make your "main villians" esp if they were of PC races has always been a pretty standard DMing technique in my experiences.

Using 3.x mechanics, a tribe of orcs was usually a bunch of orcs per MM and then a shaman which had some cleric levels and a chief with some barbarian/fighter levels. Turn it into a bandit camp and you had a bunch of warriors/commoners/experts led by a Rogue, Ranger, Barbarian, etc...

 

[Daniel D. Fox]

Since I run a humanocentric gaming world and regularly build "NPC parties", this does concern me.

What I have found is that you really cannot compare class to class, since they function differently. Without going too much into the details, I find that 4th edition (merely from 1st level) seems to have an even spread of abilities and counter-abilities built into the classes. I like it, but hard to say what the higher levels hold. Either way, every edition thus far has worked for me.

 

[jaelis]

My guess for PvP:
- Striker beats controller
- Controller beats defender
- Defender beats striker

A leader loses any 1:1 combat, but a leader plus another character beats any two characters with no leader.

 

[Cadfan]

Assuming that PVP means one character versus one other character, no. I do not think that 4e will be balanced for PVP.

It will probably balance just great for Party v. Party.

But in PVP, there are certain fundamental problems. For example, consider a ranger with a move of 6 and a power that lets him shift one space before he attacks. Put him in combat with a Fighter in plate mail armor and a move of 5. The fighter can run at 7, but the ranger can retreat at 7. If the ranger starts 8 spaces away, the fighter can never, ever catch him.

This sort of problem is probably unfixable.