A simple fix to balance fighters vs. casters ?

[Arrowhawk]

Once again, another good post refreshingly free of inane questions, snarky innuendo, and ad hominems.

Let me start by saying we probably agree on about 60%-80% of this. I think there are some details we could debate (and I might be inclined to ). But there is something you said that I want to restate:

I try to defend it from misunderstanding where I can.

I think this needs to go both ways. I think one of the problems with JaronK's Tier system is that it leads to misinformation, which is worse than no information. With misinformation you draw the wrong conclusions.

Let's revisit something you said and to which I responded in the previous post..

The Tiers are about what putting X amount of effort into a class and Y amount of player skill will do--

This seems like a natural extension of the Tier system doesn't it? But no where is it actually proven or is there any real evidence to support it. So the manner in which this Tier system is presented leads us to extend its implications far beyond what can logically or scientifically be supported. I think this does a disservice to the game and those who play it. And this is mostly why I'm posting. The Tier system is held up as some universal truth about D&D when it's not.

As I said before, we know that given the same player, the more options you give them, the more they can do. But that doesn't mean they will make choices that are actually beneficial or that they'll make the right choices. Who is more detrimental to the party in the hands of a bad decision maker, a Wizard or a Fighter? A bad decision make is still equal skill.

"The Tier system is valid when not DMing a party of vegetables" would not have to be a stated assumption.

But that's exactly the assumption he makes. He says "equal skill / optimzation." So at what point above a vegetable does the Wizard move five Tiers above a Fighter? Do you think Jaronk can tell you that?

So let's look at the discussion point by point...

Granted that they are not numerically quantifiable *** you don't need to know about the exact numerical superiority of fireball's damage output vs. haste's damage output to see that the latter is helping more.

Apologies, I'm having a hard time figuring what it is you mean to say. I was pointing out that we don't know how much of X effort is required to put into Y class to make the Tier system true. I agree that we can look at contextual effectiveness between various party confirgurations...but I don't understand how this relates to the point you originally made.

Likewise, we don't need to know that nonsi has put in 34.7 hours of work building his character ***and make a qualitative judgment of their relative skill and optimization levels.

So there are bunch of things being conflated here. Equal effort =/= equal effectiveness. Nonsi could spend 10 minutes making a character and I could spend 10 hours and Nonsi's could be more effective in a given context. Likewise. I might take Nonsi's charcter and be more effective with his character than he is in another context. The point is you really have no way of knowing what are relative skills/optimization level is. I believe the charop boards are filled with people who disagree about what is the best way to "optimize" for any specific role or task. Can you look at the arguments being made and determine who would play X class better than the other?

As well, the beguiler's tricks are the same as a wizard's tricks...

Yes and no. Both use the same spells, but implementation /method is often more important than base functionality. The approach (method) of the beguilar is diferent than the Wizard. One can be familiar with all the spells and feats but doesn't mean that as DM, you're familiar with a Wizard playing as a blaster. That mode of play may still catch you buy surprise. So the Beguiler respresents a different mode of play. Nevertheless, i threw it out there as an example of a one of the factors that determines how well a DM prepares for certain classes, not as a truth about nonsi's situation.

On the contrary, they were quite valid. Assumption 1: Given the same player skill,

Apologies, my point was not clear. Neither you nor Nonsi has equal skill/optimization across all players. So it would be dangerous if not outright folly to start changing the (nerfing/boosting) characters based on the Tier system. I believe we are in agreement on this.

The Tier system measures a class's worth to a party in general, not its worth when played alongside other characters of equal optimization by players of equal skill.

So here we are again with what seems a logical extension of the Tier system...despite no real or even illusory evidence to support such an extension. Jaronk ostensibly created the Tier system for two purposes:

1) Warn DM's about the difficulties in providing a fair (people use the word "balanced") campaign when you have a Wizard and Fighter at lvl 11.

2) The "intraparty" (term he specficially uses) effectiveness between classes. In other words, the Wizard is more poweful than the Fighter at level 11 i.e. the classes are not "balanced" and thus you as a DM need to "balance" them.

I've never seen a party with equal optimziation / skill across all classes. Have you? How do you know when skill is equal? Do you give your players an IQ test and a knowledge test on D&D? So you really don't know what level of skill/optimziation you are dealing with. You have a comparative sense...but you can't quantify it. So to reiterate a point I'm guilty of beating like a dead horse. We don't know when the Tier system is true...we are only told that it is true for all skill levels. Well, we've already proven that it's not.

While I personally believe that I as a DM should oversee character creation to ensure that everyone is at roughly the same balance points--

While I neither disagree or agree with this, assessment of what that point is entirely subjective.

... wade into battle, and waste the competition rather effectively. Focus on touch spells, use the bite of X and [Polymorph] spells...

Let's change the nature of the discussion. Can you talk to me about a campaign you had that went from 1-15 and at what point the Tier 1's took over the game?

Or just talk generally how high level spell casters caused the armageddon that JaronK tells us will result with the mix of Fighters and Wizards in the same party. Like you, I don't have infinite experience playing 3.5, so it would help to hear examples where things worked exactly as JaronK predicts them to.

[quote[ Note that the wizard can't necessarily be a fighter and perform all of his wizardly duties at the same time, but that's the power of the T1 classes: [/quote]
Funny, because that's my argument as well...but that's not how Jaronk presents it...

Capable of doing absolutely everything, often better than classes that specialize in that thing.

Jaronk doesn't add any time constraint modifiers. He says "absolutely everything." So are we in agreement that he overstates the case?

they can be a normal wizard/cleric/druid/etc. then wake up one morning, decide to become a fighter, and then do that, without permanently affecting their abilities.

And I'm very curious to hear based on your experience how often that happens. How often does the Wizard become the Fighter and do this more efficiently and effectively than the Fighter himself? Share specific campaign anecdotes if you can.

...but that means that you can't have a BBEG who isn't a caster and has no access to casters.

...and why would that be an issue? I would assume that if you have high level casters who can do these things...they are takling missions that require these things to be done and in turn expect them to be doing these things. I mean isn't this like the monsters you put in a high level dungeon? Are you putting in monsters with AC's and damage output that indeed pose a thread to the martial classes who are at that level? Why wouldn't those same dungeons have threats for the spell castesr? I.e. lots of Enfeeblement anti magic, time constraints, inhospitable environments for resting...etc.

2) What sort of protections are there against commune and contact other plane?

Well, COP has a failure %. Second, there's nothing in RAW that says a being from that plane doesn't come looking to kill the person who is disturbing them. If you are a deity (you know, immortal being beyond the scope of man), and some mortal beings are constantly bugging you with questions...you might be willing to answer...and then make sure they never ask again. Or warn them of the consequence of your answering their question before you answer it. Per RAW, a deity or outside force can block use of the spell...who is to say that any such use isn't a "rare" occasion?

Commune has a bunch of strict rules...specifically that the deity will answer the question to further their own interest. In both cases, you can feed players misinformation about what questions to ask. If a kidnapped victim or treasure is in a Rope Trick..then they techncially aren't in the city are they?

Let me make an observation. A lot of these discussions have this feel of talking about what could happen, about what is technically possible under RAW. But the more I look at specific cases, the more I see RAW options for DM's to manage the situation. I do 100% agree with Jaronk's suggestion that it's easier to design campaigns for any characters that are 1 diminesional. But that includes classes like Sorcs who have optimized their build for blasting.

The fact that you have to specifically protect against enemy divinations is exactly the sort of thing the Tier system is meant to warn DMs about

Jaronk makes it sound like an impossible task simply because you have a Fighter in the group. Is that your experience? Are Wizards in a single sessions invincible when compared to Fighters? I don't mean potentially, I mean as you have played the game.

....a wizard needs a single scroll of teleport...

One thing I am inclined to agree with is that 3.5 does a lousy job of keeping Spell Casters reigned in. Reading Monte Cook's articles, it's clear that many of the designers played 1e. They remember how limited Magic Users were and I think they went overboard in opening up Spell casters. With spells like Miracle able to be cast in a Stanard Action, or clerics being able to worship ideals and have no restrictions on spell level, I think they over did it. Celebrim shared some helpful insights on the matter as well. Couple short casting times with the 5ft step and Combast Casting and good luck stopping a spell being cast. He also oints out that in 1e, a high level Fighter could save on a 2. Now, the addition of spell level and caster modifier on the DC check is wholly unfair to martial classes and their chances to "Save or Suck" as he puts it.

I definitely think there are fairness issues with casters and non-casters.

My point is that ***can alter self/polymorph into a form with the ability to breathe water (or one that doesn't need to breathe), or buff his Con to let him hold his breath longer.

Rather than examine the specifics, I will concede the point.

I disagree with the notion that one cannot balance RPG classes due to lack of a metric. The metric(s) exist and can be balanced to.

But you do agree that if you can't reduce something to a number...it can't be balanced?

From a mathematical perspective....

Debating this topic would take hours. I will make the general point that really what you're doing is taking abitrary situations and trying do determine effectiveness. MMORPG's do this by having certain iconic builds fight various different enemies which they feel are representative. But as you acknolweged, there are a small universe of assumptions that go into any such analysis.

First, one must make certain assumptions to do this testing. You cannot balance weights until you decide upon the gram and the Newton;

I would argue that the assumptions aren't in just choosing the metric...they are aslo choosing the conditions of the test. There is no unversal test for determining DPS if there are circumstancial modifiers. You'd have to test under all those different circumstances...and then you'd run into another problem...

most games are designed with badly-chosen (or completely undetermined) arbitrary balance points that don't necessarily align to the way the game will be played--

Bingo!!! Look at car comparisons. Review guides put cars through a battery of tests and take objective measurements. Then they rate the cars based on things like 0-60, 0-100, 100-0, lateral g's, cargo capacity, 5 mph bumber crash, etc. Now...do all those tests have equal value to all buyers? No. You may not give a rat's patootie about 0-60 if you're buying a car to haul groceries. So while there may be popular agreement on ranking importance of the tests, its still subjective. So how would you balance those cars without making them all the same car? You can't. You can't compare the important or value or usefullness of lateral g's to 0-60. There is no common metric. At best you can determine how those qualities might coorelate to some other quality you do value (like mpg).

Second, the fact that balance can be achieved doesn't mean it will be.

I am not debating about whether balanced will be achieved. I'm saying that since you can't determine how cars "balance" you can't measure it.

No designer will sit down and try to apply numerical values to nonnumerical quantities because someone somewhere will disagree, and if those someones are your player base or your bosses you're in trouble.

Now we are on the same page. This is why designers who talk about "balance" are using the wrong word...either intentionally, or unintentionally. But they certainly can't talk about fairness can they?

Leaving everything to the DM doesn't work; observe AD&D.

Well, I think you're stepping in hot water when you say "doesn't work." Under 1e, D&D became the most recognizable roleplaying game of all time. Some of that was undoubtedly due to negative press and target market, but it was still immensely popular. I'll offer a thought about any RPG:

You can't improve the game...you can only change it.

I object to the notion that one cannot possibly have a scale of "less balanced" to "more balanced" by which to judge games, based on weighting different aspects of gameplay and adjusting outputs to suit the desired baseline.

I completely agree that people use the term "balance" and make changes based on perceived "balance," but what they are really doing is changing contextual effectiveness. They aren't creating balance. They are saying, "I think providing more X to this class makes the class more effective in this situation...and that is better for the game." Totally...totally...subjective.

The reason why I make this distinction is that one of the first things you learn if you take any decision analysis cours is is that the most important part of decision making/problem solving is to accurately identify the problem. Failure to do so means you end up solving the wrong problem...and possibly making things worse.

Since you can't "balance" D&D, continually trying to achieve something that is immeasurable is foolishness. It's almost clinical insanity: Doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. People keep trying to tweak the rules over and over and expecting things to "balance" are barking up the wrong tree.

What you need to do is say, "Here are the prototypcial scenarios in which we are going to achieve equal effectiveness for all classes." Outside of those cases, we accept disproportinate results. Then you can debate about the parameters of those scenarios, but at least you know what you're getting and where you're getting it.

 

[Arrowhawk]

I think a lot of what Arrowhawk's complaints regarding the tiers is about is that JaronK used numerative descriptors for the tiers.

No.

So there isn't really a need for me to address the rest of this.

 

[Empirate]

OK, Arrowhawk, let me just quote a few things for you from one of your last posts, and bold the important bits:

Now, does JaronK provide us with a skill+optimization matrix versus class? No. There is no metric for determing the comparative skill/optimzation, or lack thereof, in the people in your group and matching that up with how much of a difference it will mean between Tier 1 and Tier 6.

JaronK never mentions what amount of skill or optimization we are talking about.

How much better is Nonsi than his friends? How much more optimization has he put in? Can you provide me with a metric that allows me to compare them? How familiar is the DM with Beguiler class to begin with? There is a underlying point being made here at it's crucial to a later point: these things are immeasurable from any quantitative standpoint...but yet JaronK says we can quantize the classes.

Balance is by its very definition an objective weighing of two things with a common metric. [...] It's literally not possible to balance things that do not have a similar metric. [...] Not only can you not achieve balance, you can't even measure it.

Now don't go telling me your criticism of JaronK ISN'T in (IMHO: large) part about quantifiability. To wit: it is. And thus, isn't pertinent to what JaronK actually tried to achieve. You're talking about measuring class difference, measuring game balance, applying similar metrics to similar things - and it all adds up to ignoring that this is about quality, not quantifiability, of certain gameplay phenomena in D&D.

Note that I'm not dissing your general line of complaints. I'm feeling (like you) that JaronK went waaay overboard, and his (her?) recommendations to DMs (nerf this, disallow that, don't play with groups of far apart tiers etc.) are a metric ton of shoot. But I feel your argument could be much strengthened if you actually took under consideration that what you're dealing with here is all about qualitative differences between classes, and nothing about quantifiability of said differences.

 

[Arrowhawk]

This

Jaronk used numaritive descriptors

and this:

about quantifiability.

are wholly separate topics. I couldn't care less what he labels the tiers or how many tiers there are or whether a Beguilier is in Tier 2 or Tier 3.

My point is that he is presenting it like it's science...and it's not. Have you read the explanations of why things are in their tiers? They read like scouting reports of highschool football players, except they can't even reference things like 40 times, vertical leap, or max reps at 220lb.

To wit: it is. And thus, isn't pertinent to what JaronK actually tried to achieve.

I can't speak to what he is trying to achieve, I can only comment on what he says, how he justifies it, and what I think is the consequence of saying such things.

and it all adds up to ignoring that this is about quality, not quantifiability

When you put things in a ranking and strata....you are quantifying them.

Quantization is the procedure of constraining something from a relatively large or continuous set of values to a relatively small discrete set.
​

....that what you're dealing with here is all about qualitative differences between classes, and nothing about quantifiability of said differences.

Which would seem inconsistent with quantizing the classes wouldn't it? Do you think there is an inherent problem with taking something that is assessed qualitatively and then presenting the information as if it's quantitative?

The problem is that when you want to make assertions about games that have any teeth, you're forced to present the facts in a quantitative manner. Qualitative discussions are subjective and that gets you no where because you can't prove that Cake A taste better than Cake B. But if you present it like its provable...welll then suddenly people think you're right.

EDIT:
That should say "...you are quantizing them.", not quantifying. My bad.

 

[kitcik]

This

Jaronk used numaritive descriptors

and this:

Originally Posted by Empirate

about quantifiability.

are wholly separate topics. I couldn't care less what he labels the tiers or how many tiers there are...

OK, numerical descriptors and quantification are two separate things. Got it.

When you put things in a ranking and strata....you are quantifying them.

OK, numerical descriptors and quantification are the same thing. Got it.

Which would seem inconsistent with quantizing the classes wouldn't it? Do you think there is an inherent problem with taking something that is assessed qualitatively and then presenting the information as if it's quantitative?

I'm not sure, it's all very confusing for some reason.

But I see your point - there is an inherent problem in taking qualitative differences and trying t quantify them. Got it.

The problem is that when you want to make assertions about games that have any teeth, you're forced to present the facts in a quantitative manner. Qualitative discussions are subjective and that gets you no where because you can't prove that Cake A taste better than Cake B. But if you present it like its provable...welll then suddenly people think you're right.

Aah, so you have to quantify any assertion about a game for it to have teeth, but you can't quantify it because it is qualitative. So you can't make any assertions about D&D. Got it.

Note to moderator: shut down the forum, it is pointless. No further assertions can be made about D&D.

 

[Empirate]

[MENTION=98256]kitcik[/MENTION]: my thoughts exactly! Would love to XP you, but can't at the moment.

 

[Arrowhawk]

@kitcik : my thoughts exactly! Would love to XP you, but can't at the moment.

That's too bad. Because you're thinking exactly like a guy who thinks showing you tube clips of Indiana Jones movies proves things about D&D. I can see how my response might be confusing, but I've read some of your posts in other threads and I assumed you were capable of connecting the dots.

I have three cakes. I have ranked them in the order that I like them and given them "numerical descriptors." Do you think I've just quantized the cakes? No? Then why do you think using numerical descriptors is the same as quantizing things?

Nevertheless, using numerical descriptors has nothing to do with the discussion. Reducing a large and continuous set of values to a small descrete set ...does. If you think that means the same thing as using numerical descriptors, I can see why you are confused.

Part of the confusion may be my using both "quantify" and "quantize." I thought it was clear that I was pointing out the problem with quantizing classes, not quantifying classes. I think it's clear you can't quantify or quantize subjective qualities but you can quantify preferences. Still, that doesn't seem to be the true source of the disconnect based on your post, but it may be part of the problem, if so, my bad. I'll pay more attention to which word I'm using.

Now don't go telling me your criticism of JaronK ISN'T in (IMHO: large) part about quantifiability. To wit: it is

And no it is not. You quote several different responses out of context and then try and present them as all talking about the same thing. You seem to focus on words that identify quantitative things--amount, metric, quantify-- and then you suggest that they must invariably be talking about the same thing. Uh...no. You also seem to either to fail to understand the point that is being made in those quotes you reference, or you just are intentionally ignoring them because it doesn't suit the point you want to make...or rather debate.

My concerns are 50% about the logic used to justify the Tier and 50% about the damage one does to the game in doing something like the Tier without doing a better job of identifying its limitations. While we seem to agree that Jaronk goes overboard, you seemed to be confused by the tangential discussion about "balance." For reasons I haven't tried to fathom, you seem to need to erroneously distill my position into something you can critique or be critical of.

I'll spell it out:

When you quantize (not quantify) something that is subjective/context based...you can't justify your quantization like it's provable fact. More to the point, the logic he employs is contradictory/inconsistent. The use of numerical discriptors is irrelevant to both those topics.

Does that clear it up for you?

 

[Empirate]

No. No it doesn't, I'm sorry to say. I am connecting the dots as best I can, but it really seems to me that your arguments contradict each other just like kitcik pointed out.

My quotations of your arguments may have been quoted out of context (else I would have had to quote your entire post), but were not read out of context, I assure you.

Maybe I am latching on to those parts of your argument that irritate me (if only because this debate has been rehashed so often), maybe I concentrate on those parts too much, and I'm sorry if that gives the impression as if I'd want to criticize you. I generally don't find it necessary to constantly point out what parts of another forum member's posts are to my liking. I prefer to enter arguments where I don't agree, or where I see a deficit in an ongoing debate, so I can try and offer my own two cents.

Maybe your argument has become so long, and includes so many tangents as well (balance etc.), that I just don't comprehend it very well anymore, so my two cents are worth less than one. But I really thought I had a point there, which you just deny outright without going into details about why. Well, that's your prerogative, I'm not arguing this any further.

What we can probably agree on is that this personal debate of ours doesn't contribute anything to the ongoing discussion, so we may as well leave it at that.

That said, I believe the same point could be raised with regards to the whole thread...

 

[Arrowhawk]

Great post. Great on a number of levels and not to over do it, but I think it does you much credit and it changes the complexion of the discussion, at least for me.

But as you said,

I generally don't find it necessary to constantly point out what parts of another forum member's posts are to my liking.

So I won't go into the details.

Let me start at the end..

What we can probably agree on is that this personal debate of ours doesn't contribute anything to the ongoing discussion, so we may as well leave it at that.

Maybe we can't. The main purpose I come to boards is to discuss things. While I tend to post in an authoritative manner, really, I'm more interested in learning what I don't know than telling people what I do. One of the key problems in any discussion/debate is overcoming the imprecision in the English language. If you're confused by something I'm saying, then others are too. The other major challenge in forum discussions is correctly identifying/describing the problem (as I've said). As such, if you think I am not correctly identifying the problem, I would consider that of paramount importance to the discussion. Since my point is to challenge the basis under which we believe Fighters are not balanced with Casters, clearing up the confusion does contribute to the discussion. But that's just my opinion.

My quotations of your arguments may have been quoted out of context (else I would have had to quote your entire post), but were not read out of context, I assure you.

This is what I see...

Q: Do you enjoy eating candy?
A: No, I can't stand candy, it's vile and I hate it.
Q: As a dentist, how do you feel about candy?
A: I love it. Candy is the best thing in the world.

You:
"You contradict yourself. First you said this..."

A: No, I can't stand candy, it's vile and I hate it.

"and now you're saying this:"

I love it. Candy is the best thing in the world.

Maybe I am latching on to those parts of your argument that irritate me

This. And guess what? I do it too. It's called selective filterin. It's been clinically documented that in political debates. People completely ignore objective facts that are contrary to their position. It's one of the things I try to avoid most in my posts.

maybe I concentrate on those parts too much

I think this criticism can be aimed squarely at me with regards to the tier system. I am focusing on what I see as its flaws...but mainly because I feel that the way it is presented it does more harm than good.

and I'm sorry if that gives the impression as if I'd want to criticize you

No need to apologize. I was dismissiive of your first post and that wasn't helping.

I prefer to enter arguments where I don't agree

Pretty common affliction isn't it?

so I can try and offer my own two cents.

And this is where I have been remiss. In your first post you suggested that my argument might be improved. But I dismissed the benefit you were offering me (whether you mean it as such or not).

Maybe your argument has become so long, and includes so many tangents as well (balance etc.), that I just don't comprehend it very well anymore

Yes. This is the problem with quoting bits and pieces and responding to them. Like I am doing now.

But I really thought I had a point there, which you just deny outright without going into details about why.

Well then help me to understand what it is you are saying. Let me go back and reread your post and see if I can figure it out...

Okay. Let me see if I can paraphrase your argument. Tell me if I got it wrong:

JaronK has made qualitative rankings and doesn't have to prove them quantitatively. Requiring him to do so leads to false conclusions.

Is that the essence of what you were saying?

 

[kitcik]