Are we all becoming balance lawyers?

[francisca]

Well, here I think you're misidentifying some stuff. The mods for feats, skills, and situations, and all the other fiddly-bits are not there to bring balance. They are there to be fiddly bits for people who like to muck about with fiddly-bits.

In a thread about balance, you're making an argument about complexity. Apples and oranges, I'm afraid. You can make an argument that it is harder to balance a complex game, but if your stated view is that you don't care about balance anyway, that's hardly a line to worry about.

That's your opinion.

How do you balance classes? By making sure the "sum" of their abilities, feats, etc... are equal at a given level across the board. To me, this means all of these bits and pieces like skills, feats, BAB, save, and assoicated stuff that goes along with them are part and parcel to a discussion about balance. They are the tools used to bring balance. Stirring all of this stuff in has created a more complex game (at least in reference to 1e). I see this as a result of trying to balance the classes. I recognize that others see it as options to taylor the classes so all fighters aren't the same, etc.., but I think from a purley mechanical standpoint, the feats especially have more value for balancing the classes.

I don't think I said it's harder to balance a complex game vs. a simple game, and there probably is some room for argument (I mean, you got to have some components to tweak). I am, however, attributing a portion of 3e's complexity to the desire to balance the classes against each other, even if it is in hindsight, and not a stated design goal.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

That's your opinion.

How do you balance classes? By making sure the "sum" of their abilities, feats, etc... are equal at a given level across the board. To me, this means all of these bits and pieces like skills, feats, BAB, save, and assoicated stuff that goes along with them are part and parcel to a discussion about balance. They are the tools used to bring balance. Stirring all of this stuff in has created a more complex game (at least in reference to 1e). I see this as a result of trying to balance the classes. I recognize that others see it as options to taylor the classes so all fighters aren't the same, etc.., but I think from a purley mechanical standpoint, the feats especially have more value for balancing the classes.

I don't think I said it's harder to balance a complex game vs. a simple game, and there probably is some room for argument (I mean, you got to have some components to tweak). I am, however, attributing a portion of 3e's complexity to the desire to balance the classes against each other, even if it is in hindsight, and not a stated design goal.

If I understanding you correctly, you are hypothesizing that if not for the straightjacket this thing called "game balance" these mechanical gumdrops would not exist.

I do not think you could be further from the truth.

From my POV, 3e is very roughly what the 2nd edition should have been. The RPG design "technology" used in 3e had been tried and proven mechanics from the late 80s or earlier. In fact, we can see lots of half-hearted attempts to use the basic concept of feats and skills in 2e.

3e contains these skills and feats for PC customization because there was the belief that is what players wanted based on the fact that all other RPGs had been going that way for well over a decade.

But maybe I misunderstood -- you made this confusing reference to "in hindsight". Can you back up the claim that balanced games tend to be more complex?

Even that looks like baloney. If I wanted to "balance" the Fighter without having to use feats at all, I could just up the HPs and BAB, then strip feats out of the game entirely. Boring as heck, but you cannot get simpler than that.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I've played a lot of RPG systems that don't have balance as their central tenet, so I'm not averse to unbalanced classes.

That said, I think D&D classes should be balanced in some way vis a vis each other, since class balance is one of the key design elements to the game that lets DMs assess and design encounters.

In earlier editons, balance was "achieved" by having the classes have individual XP charts. Thieves, less powerful than other classes, advanced much more quickly. Wizards started off relatively quickly, but then progressed quite slowly in the higher levels.

In the current edition, however, all the classes share the same XP chart. Thus, when a class is designed that looks like a "dip" class, or progresses in power inordinately quickly, issues arise.

Does balance demand that all classes be equally powerful in combat? Of course not- but those that are less powerful combatants need to have abilities that are useful outside of it.

A lot of people gripe about bards being weak, but if your campaign is heavily role-play centric, bards can easily outshine their compatriots...right up to the point of bashing in heads.

So I think when most people say "balance" what they really mean is "it looks strange to me" or "that's unfamiliar so I instinctively fear it" or "I don't like it".

While that has much truth to it, there is a sense in which a certain Feat or game element may be quickly percieved to be imbalanced if there are other similarly designed game elements that the new element clearly outstrips.

For instance, if you were to design a version of Power Attack for a new setting that gave a tradeoff of +3 damage per point of BAB shift, people would quickly call it unbalanced...and unless you could point to elements within the setting that justified the new Feat (tougher average defenses or larger average HD, perhaps), they'd probably be right.

 

[Faraer]

We know that the AD&D1 classes are balanced not because of any armchair-game-designer analysis but because people -- judging from the many online accounts of play -- like to play all of them.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

We know that the AD&D1 classes are balanced not because of any armchair-game-designer analysis but because people -- judging from the many online accounts of play -- like to play all of them.

Something that is sufficiently "playable" to be enjoyable to a particular person in a particular campaign is not necessarily "balanced" in the way most people use this latter term.

 

[DM-Rocco]

These arguments amuse me. If you don't care about balance between classes, then why do you care that the classes are balanced. Shouldn't you, by the definition of not caring, not care?

Would you rather the classes be imbalanced? Does not caring about balance mean preferring imbalance?

Quasqueton

LMAO, I love it

Anyway, first edition, while i loved it, was not balanced. A thief could get to level 30 when a mage is hitting 18th level and a barbarian about 9th.

As to the rest of the classes being balanced in other editions, I think they should be; and I am a DM of over 25 years and can handle just about any PC. Balance helps things run smoothly and ensures that everyone is going to enjoy the game. If you don't think balance is an issue, then you play a 1st level character and I will play an epic character. You won't get any XP cause the monsters are too high to defeat for you and you would contribute nothing of merit into the fight. I would get all the money, loot, XP and glory and you might, if I allow you, maybe if I am drunk, point your finger in the direction of the next fight.

Anyway, your whole argument is riddle with holes. I can tell from your tone there is no changing your mind, but you are wrong. Balance is what every class, feat, skill, item and spell need. Without it, the game breaks down quickly. It is not an easy thing to come by either. Just look at the epic rules. If balance was so easy, they would have reprinted the EPHB with 3.5 rules. They can't cause they broke the balance so bad they can't even figure out where to begin to fix it.

 

[francisca]

If I understanding you correctly, you are hypothesizing that if not for the straightjacket this thing called "game balance" these mechanical gumdrops would not exist.

I do not think you could be further from the truth.

From my POV, 3e is very roughly what the 2nd edition should have been. The RPG design "technology" used in 3e had been tried and proven mechanics from the late 80s or earlier. In fact, we can see lots of half-hearted attempts to use the basic concept of feats and skills in 2e.

3e contains these skills and feats for PC customization because there was the belief that is what players wanted based on the fact that all other RPGs had been going that way for well over a decade.

But maybe I misunderstood -- you made this confusing reference to "in hindsight". Can you back up the claim that balanced games tend to be more complex?

Even that looks like baloney. If I wanted to "balance" the Fighter without having to use feats at all, I could just up the HPs and BAB, then strip feats out of the game entirely. Boring as heck, but you cannot get simpler than that.

You're misunderstanding me, but that's because I'm doing a crappy job of explaining myself.

I'm short on time, so I'll give you a quick answer and try to pick this back up tomorrow.

The feats, skills, etc.. were totally planned to add flexibility to the classes. I agree that was the intent, and have no argument with that. When you go through and try to balance the classes, the feats, skills, supernatural abilities all must be tweaked and adjusted not only mechanically but when they are awarded. It's my contention that in hindsight, introducing these elements complicated the game in the process of adding flexibility. I question whether this was a good thing. However, I am stopping short of claiming that a complicated game is more difficult to balance than a simple game. I simply don't know. I think a complex game may have a better chance to become balanced, as the abundnant mechanics can be manipulated in a more ganular way. The complex system has more "resolution" if you will. But again, I'm not so sure it's worth it in the long run.

Does that help?

 

[Cadfan]

I agree that balance is important. However, to a certain degree, balance is a player's responsibility as well as WOTC's and as well as the DM's.

First, lets clarify that balance refers to all around balance of fun, not damage. Look at a recent article on adventure design on the WOTC main site. It discussed a rough guide of how they try to vary encounters. Not all encounters in a large adventure ought to be combat encounters. Some should be, for example, skill encounters. Some should be solvable with roleplaying. Some should involve knowledge to make them easier (Kn. Religion to find a new monster's weakness), some should require mobility skills to make them easier (balance checks to stay standing during a fight).

So, this means that a character which has advantages in things other than combat needs to be weaker in combat. Because we're balancing fun and not damage, a character which excels in, say, the social solutions, can trade off some damage and combat power in exchange. Hence the reason the Swashbuckler (excels in social skills and mobility besides just fighting) is balanced, and also the reason people hate it: its balanced with non combat abilities, and people who just want combat ignore the skills, dip three levels, and move on to another class.

Now, THAT BEING SAID. I don't think WOTC should, or even can, balance all characters. I think there's a basic power level that a single class character tends to achieve when played in a casual manner, and I think it is the player's obligation to respect this power level when crafting their character. It is easy to exceed this level if one creates a character by carefully dipping 2 to 3 levels of multiple prestige and base classes in a finely crafted build, but I think the basic ethics of being a player are to avoid doing this. WOTC should do its best to avoid making this too easy, but most likely its impossible to completely shut down. As such, the player has a duty not to violate this aspect of the game.

There aren't any hard and fast rules about this. Its not always dipping PRCs that is the problem, even. Sometimes dipping a PRC can be a fun and flavorful way to enhance a character. Sometimes it is pure cheese. Sometimes the problem is just a feat: divine metamagic? I can't give a Commandment on how to follow or enforce this ethical rule, but I do think that, as watery as it is, a mature player can follow it easily and still have fun with the game.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

In earlier editons, balance was "achieved" by having the classes have individual XP charts. Thieves, less powerful than other classes, advanced much more quickly. Wizards started off relatively quickly, but then progressed quite slowly in the higher levels.

In the current edition, however, all the classes share the same XP chart. Thus, when a class is designed that looks like a "dip" class, or progresses in power inordinately quickly, issues arise.

Yeah; I like the older way of doing this (i.e. separate XP charts). If one class has more abilities/power, acknowledge that it is more powerful and make it advance slower. I think that approach is easier than trying to ensure that every class is equally balanced at every level, especially given the constant addition of new prestige classes, feats, et cetera.

 

[Calico_Jack73]

I never considered inter-class balance as a game-breaker/maker since I play D&D. I couldn't care less if a Thief is not that cool in combat. If I wanted to play a thief I'd have other motivations to do so than combat statistics and their comparison to other classes. Because, every PC has his 5 minutes of fame in an adventure at least once, and those are the moments that count, not the question if you are playing a "balanced" class or not.

THANK YOU!!!! This is exactly what I was getting at. If you want to play a Thief play a thief and have fun with it. Just please don't whine that another class is more powerful in combat than you and is thus "unbalanced".