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

[Jefe Bergenstein]

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...

Like I said, I'm not sure if you'll still add classes to things to create NPC adversaries. NPC kobolds dont have feats, why would NPC human bandits? An enemy human NPC wizard might not have levels in the PC wizard class, and may be created using a different system. So the game wouldnt necessarily be expected to be balanced about a heroic class fighter vs. a heroic class wizard, because you arent expected to face off against them.

 

[Plane Sailing]

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!"

I would think that this is such a minority issue in the whole worldwide community of D&D players that they probably wouldn't want to waste any time even trying to make it work in that respect.

It has proven tricky enough (though noble enough) to attempt to balance all PC classes for 'equal fun' in the adventure. It seems that 4e is attempting to make more headway towards that goal.

That's enough for me.


Cheers

 

[Dausuul]

This is pure guesswork, but I think the matchups will look something like this. Note that this is all based on the 8 classes in the PHB; for example, I assume Leaders favor melee combat since both Leader classes (cleric and warlord) seem melee-oriented.

Defender versus Striker: Edge to Defender, but situation- and build-dependent. If the Defender gets the Striker into melee, it's game over--Strikers rely on a darting, in-and-out approach to melee combat, and that doesn't work against a "sticky" opponent. On the other hand, a Striker specialized for ranged attacks can probably outmaneuver the Defender, who will usually be wearing heavy armor and thus move slower.

Defender versus Leader: Defender wins. Both favor melee combat, but Leaders are weaker than other classes in a one-on-one fight, since part of their power lies in being able to buff up everyone else.

Defender versus Controller: Edge to Defender. A savvy Controller can make the Defender's life hell, using all kinds of slowing and ranged-damage powers to avoid getting into melee and wear the Defender down... but if the Defender ever does manage to close into melee range, the Controller is soooooo dead.

Controller versus Striker: Striker wins. Hard. Taking out enemy Controllers is what Strikers live for. They're fast enough to force the Controller into melee (a difficult task for a Defender or a Leader), and hit hard enough to quickly cripple the fragile Controller.

Controller versus Leader: Slight edge to Controller. The Leader has the same issues the Defender does when facing a Controller, with the added problem of lacking the Defender's stickiness and heavy-hitting power, so even if the Leader does get the Controller into melee, the fight isn't over. On the other hand, the Leader can deal with the Controller's debuffs more easily than any other role.

Leader versus Striker: Striker wins. The Striker can outmaneuver the Leader and hit hard, and the Leader can't glom stickily onto the Striker the way the Defender can.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Sounds like time for the Thunderdome ...

Two PCs Enter, One PC Leaves!

 

[hong]

People already do PvP (whether 1v1, 4v4 or something else). Since 4E is rather more videogamey than previous versions, it will probably be better able to adapt to this.

 

[SmilingPiePlate]

Sorta what Plane Sailing said.

I've only ever played 3rd and 3.5 edition, but it seemed pretty clear to me that the classes are emphatically not balanced around being equally powerful in 1v1 duels.

Casters in 3rd edition simply have access to all sorts of combat-altering effects that noncasters have no natural defenses against, discounting items. Not to mention effects that are more or less "save or die" in 1v1 duel to the death. Hold Person being my favorite example.

I'd actually disagree with Hong, though. What I've seen of 4th edition actually suggests to me that the different classes are, more so than 3rd edition, designed to work together as a team. A controller without someone to stand between him and his enemy may be in for a relatively quick and embarrassing defeat. Strikers and Defenders seem to be meant to work well together, with Defenders acting as the anvil, either holding enemies in place or pushing them into position for the Striker to act as the hammer that strikes the killing blow. Leaders need people to buff. Etc.

So it seems to me that 1v1 dueling balance is likely to be as much of a crapshoot as it is in 3rd edition. Groups of PCs fighting groups of rival adventurers or other foes with PC levels sound pretty interesting; I have no idea about how that is or isn't balanced, but I'm curious to see how it shakes out. It might come down to which group works as a team better, and if that's so, that's how it should be.

 

[hong]

I'd actually disagree with Hong, though. What I've seen of 4th edition actually suggests to me that the different classes are, more so than 3rd edition, designed to work together as a team. A controller without someone to stand between him and his enemy may be in for a relatively quick and embarrassing defeat. Strikers and Defenders seem to be meant to work well together, with Defenders acting as the anvil, either holding enemies in place or pushing them into position for the Striker to act as the hammer that strikes the killing blow. Leaders need people to buff. Etc.

So it seems to me that 1v1 dueling balance is likely to be as much of a crapshoot as it is in 3rd edition.

I did mention 4v4.

 

[Mal Malenkirk]

Of course they aren't balanced for PvP. It would go against basic design elements such as making the defender tougher than than other classes so they survive better on the front line.

---

Of the six 1st level PCs we have seen, the fighter Kathra would win the most scenarios.

The main reason is her combat challenge ability that gives her an AoO against even someone who 'shift' away from her (apparently the equivalent of the 5 feet step). And if she hits with the AoO, she prevents the movement. As a result, if she gets in melee (and if necessary she can move up to three time her speed thanks to an action point) she can prevent the target from moving away which would be serious trouble, if not a death knell, for a controller or a striker. And there's no question she can outpunch the cleric. She can also outpunch the paladin but this might have more to do with the fact that the paladin is a halfling than anything else... Dwarf is optimum for a defender, halfling... not so much. If she was fighting a human paladin with a higer damage output, the bolstering strike power could be a real pain, able to make the paladin last one more round and outpunch her, perhaps. It'd be be really a flip coin toss.

Finally, in the fighter favour, her daily power is 'reliable' and therefore she'll pull it off in a fight more often than the others.

Given favourable terrain, the ranger would also win his fair share. As long as he can make it difficult to reach him, his damage output is impressive. His HP, not so much.

But the warlock is the one who could the most reliably beat the fighter IMO if she gets lucky with her initiative and her eyebite and frostbite powers. If she wins INI and then pull off Eyebite and then move, she's inflicted 2D6+4 (Using the curse) and is still safe for the round because is invisible to the fighter (I don't know the rules to notice someone invisible but the notice of the fighter is only +2). If that happens, she's in good position to win this thing. Especially since she has a lot of HP.

---

 

[SmilingPiePlate]

I did mention 4v4.

Ah, so you did. My bad.

 

[hong]

Actually, 1v1 PvP is a bit old-hat these days. If you look at the major PvP franchises today like Team Fortress 2, CoD 4, Quake Wars, Battlefield X, even Guild Wars, it's all about different classes working together.