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

[eleran]

I really sincerely doubt that the classes are balanced vis-a-vis each other. As far as I can tell they never have been, nor were ever intended to be.

 

[austinwulf]

I was thinking mainly Party member vs. Party member.

I suppose with more focus on the team dynamic, its a bit easier for other players to interviene, (a spell chucker freezing both combatants so they can't kill each other)

Also the new death system makes it much simpler to knock someone down hard, without killing them.

As a GM, while I encourage party unity, I try not to iron-fist enforce it. It is first and formost to me an RP game, so if certain actions are legitimately in character, I let them go.

I do try to encourage people to make characters that will play nice...at least as nice as possible.

 

[Patlin]

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.

The fighter can run and then charge, moving a total of 12 and attacking. He could also run twice for 14. He ought to catch the Ranger eventually!

 

[cr0m]

I have the impression that DMs won't need to use the PC creation rules to make up their NPC bad guys. If you want an evil necromancer villain, pick some appropriate powers, a controller role, give him a striker henchman and some minions and you're done.

Also, OP, although PvP does happen occasionally (when I was 14 it happened all the time), the game isn't about PvP, so I wouldn't expect your sneaky Rogue to get away with it if I were you.

 

[FadedC]

I was thinking mainly Party member vs. Party member.

I suppose with more focus on the team dynamic, its a bit easier for other players to interviene, (a spell chucker freezing both combatants so they can't kill each other)

Also the new death system makes it much simpler to knock someone down hard, without killing them.

As a GM, while I encourage party unity, I try not to iron-fist enforce it. It is first and formost to me an RP game, so if certain actions are legitimately in character, I let them go.

I do try to encourage people to make characters that will play nice...at least as nice as possible.

Letting somebody roleplay being a jerk and stealing purses/picking fights etc. can have it's problems though in that it forces everyone else to choose between either roleplaying badly and letting the character continu adventuring with them or kicking that character out of the group. Realistically there is no way you'd ever adventure with somebody like that.....you'd just drop them off at the nearest town and do your next quest without them.

This leads to what some people call "party syndrome" where somebody is only with the group becasue they are a PC. Nobody likes the character and there is no reason anyone would voluntarily bring him along to do stuff, but yet somehow inexplicibly he's part of the party. It often hurts roleplaying quite a bit.

 

[Jack99]

Balance in PvP is all but an illusion. The only balance that exists is the rock-scissor-paper one.

Don't fool yourself into thinking anything else.

 

[Stalker0]

I think that while it won't be balanced in pvp, it will be a lot closer, ESPECIALLY at high levels.

If your 10th level rogue in 3e wants to pick your fighter's pocket, there's likely very little chance the fighter will notice. In 4e, the fighter will have naturally gained some perception, meaning he at leasts has a chance.

A high level wizard will no longer completely dominate a fighter, though I still think he will win.

 

[jaelis]

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.

Charging fixes this, though it would deprive the fighter of his powers. (Unless of course he has a power activated on a charge, which I wouldn't be surprised to see.) I would also not be surprised if the fighter had a power to let him follow a shifting character as a reaction. I'll stand by my guess that the fighter would win this battle, though it will be interesting to see.

 

[Cadfan]

Charging fixes this, though it would deprive the fighter of his powers. (Unless of course he has a power activated on a charge, which I wouldn't be surprised to see.) I would also not be surprised if the fighter had a power to let him follow a shifting character as a reaction. I'll stand by my guess that the fighter would win this battle, though it will be interesting to see.

I didn't realize that 4e charging let you travel so much further than regular move/run/attack. Still, add in terrain, and things change.

The fundamental problem in PVP in an exceptions based system is that you'll have moments where one character's exception nullifies a rule on which the other character relies. In 3e, the stereotypical example was the flying, greater invisible wizard versus the fighter. The fighter relies on movement and melee combat rules, but the example wizard has two "exceptions" which nullify normal movement and normal melee. Unless the fighter can go find himself new exceptions that let HIM nullify these things as well, he loses.

This crops up less in a party where everyone supports each other. But its rampant in 1v1 duels.

I can't imagine this will change in 4e.

 

[Stalker0]

Charging fixes this, though it would deprive the fighter of his powers. (Unless of course he has a power activated on a charge, which I wouldn't be surprised to see.) I would also not be surprised if the fighter had a power to let him follow a shifting character as a reaction. I'll stand by my guess that the fighter would win this battle, though it will be interesting to see.

Yep, with the new running rules, a fighter can change 16 squares (80 feet). If he spend an action point for another move, that's 24 squares (120 feet).

That's assuming the fighter isn't slowed down by armor. If he's slowed down to 5 squares normally, then running bumps that up to 7....so 14 squares (70 feet), or 21 squares (105) with an action point.